ἘΣ ΤΨΥΥΥΝ Σ ΕΣ ΣΤΟΝ 


| 


B 


-NRLF 


LL 


4 029 170 





\ 
’ 
. x ἃ " 
᾽ 
‘ 
‘ Υ 
Ἷ 
; ἣν 


























EE ——————— αν 


PUCATIVE EXPRESSIONS 


IN THE yee hey Ae 


Oe πατπώ 


A DISSERTATION 


ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE 
ΟΕ DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 


BY 
Jt H. Τ᾿ MAIN; (6! 
Professor of Greek in Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa. 


BALTIMORE: 
JOHN MURPHY & CO, 
1892. 





ΕΠ liVE EXPRESSIONS 


IN THE 


ΓΤ OnATORS. 


A DISSERTATION 


ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 


ΒΥ 


ΤΕ ΜΑἸΝ: 
Professor of Greek in Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa. 


BALTIMORE: 
FORN MURPHY & CO. 
1892. 





PAGE. 
RaunameiNne seat es = Map a tS RN eg, ae BD 
I. Proper NAMEs USED AS LOCATIVES IN THE ATTIC ORATORS: 
Antiphon, = ON ga RO a a OR a Lee τῇ 
Andocides, - = Ε Ξ Ξ Ξ Σ 2 Ξ Ά ee 
Lysias, - - = = = 2 2 = ᾿ : ἂν τ 
Isocrates, - - - Ξ - ποι τας Ξ Β Ξ Ε Ξ 9 
Isaeus, - - - = - = Ξ Ξ Σ τ Ξ ee 10 
Demosthenes, - 2 - Z = A ξ ΒΞ é 2 ἈΝΤ 
Aeschines, = = = Ξ 3 = 2 Ε Ξ = 558 
Lycurgus, Bee cet teeta he eee oe Hy he nS 
Statistic for all the Orators, - = - 2 = = = ~ ie! 
Table of Averages, - - - = - Ξ- - = = 6 
11. Tue Statistics EXAMINED: 
Andocides, Spek! Rees ey ae key erie ian Ts! ye ere 
Antiphon and Dinarchus, - - - - Ξ Ε - Ss 
Lycurgus, πὰ ον το ΞΡ rele SERED 
Isocrates, Lo leet, SN Se OL a eo ne ee aay SLC 
Andocides and the later Orators compared, - - - - - 20 
References to Athens in Demosthenes, - - - - - - 28 
Local Endings in Familiar Expressions, = - - = Ξ ΕΗ 
Places where Temples were or where National Festivals were held, 25 
Dominance of the ‘where’ Forms, - - - = = = Sh oe: 
The Locative in Literature and Colloquial Greek, - - - - 26 


CONTENTS. 


Ill. THe ComMpARATIVE FREQUENCY OF THE LOCATIVE AND THE CORRES- 


PONDING PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE: 


᾿Αθήνησι, - 
᾿Αθήναζε, - 
᾿Αθήνηθεν, 

*EAevols, - 
Μαραθών, - 


The Demes of Attica, 


Μουνυχία, 


Places not in Attica: 


᾽Ολυμπία, 


Ἴσθμός and Νεμέα, 


Μέγαρα, - 
Θῆβαι, - 
Πλαταιαί, - 


Σαλαμίς, - 


mS > 


+ a 


948 


on υ ἢ , 
A ΠῚ A ways 4 


εν Ὁ δ 
Priel bi, 





LOCATIVE EXPRESSIONS IN THE 
ATTIC ORATORS. 


The various statements that have appeared regarding the use 
made of the locative adverb in proper names are unsatisfactory 
and vague, not to say misleading.'| The uncertainty that has been 
felt regarding it is an inheritance from antiquity itself, and though 
the questions involved are of sufficient importance to repay con- 
sideration no systematic effort seems to have been made to bring 
together the material necessary for the drawing of safe and reason- 
ably certain conclusions. 

The following study is made for the purpose of arriving at some 
definite understanding regarding these forms and starts out with a 
consideration of those that are found in the Attic orators, giving 
for them what is thought to be a complete statistic of proper names 
used as locative adverbs. The collection includes :— 

(1) Words having the endings -θεν, -δὲ and -ζε. 

(2) Words haying the endings -nou, -acv. 

(3) Words having the ending -οὐ. 

(4) Datives when used as locative adverbs in such words as 
Ἐλευσῖνι, Μαραθῶνι, Μελίτῃ, Σαλαμῖνι ete.” 


1The Thesaurus, for example, under ᾿Αθήνηθεν gives the general view regard- 
ing this word: Ita Attice dicendum esse pro ἐξ ᾿Αθηνῶν praecipiunt magistri. 
Then follows: Sed Thuc. viru, 17 ac saepius ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αθηνῶν. 

Liddell and Scott: ᾿Αθήνηθεν, ᾿Αθήναζε, ᾿Αθήνησι were more Attic than ἐξ 
᾿Αθηνῶν, cis ᾿Αθήνας and ἐν ᾿Αθήναις. 

Regarding the locative dative Kiihner, 426.2, says,—auch zu den angeftthrten 
Worten Ῥαμνοῦντι u.s. w. tritt haiifiger die praep. ἐν als ἐν Μαραθῶνι, Lycurg. 104. 

Cobet, Variae Lectiones, p. 30:—vitiosum est, quamquam multis non videtur, 
ἐν Μαραθῶνι et sim. 

2The word locative is for convenience applied to all these forms, and it is to be 
understood when that word is used proper names alone are referred to by it. 


5 


6 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


The study concludes with a consideration of the comparative 
frequency of the locative and the corresponding prepositional 
phrase. In dealing with this side of the question a general 
survey of classical Greek has been made and inscriptions have 
been examined. 


1. 
-:Propsr Names ΠΒΕΡ as LOCATIVES IN THE ATTIC ORATORS. 


Antiphon, who stands first among the orators of the Attic 
canon, is not represented in the tables that follow. The absence 
of the locative proper name from his orations is found further on 
to have little if any significance.’ 

Andocides stands in striking contrast to Antiphon, contributing 
as he does, fourteen words to the list. The first oration becomes 
prominent in furnishing the largest number, there being in it eleven 
of the fourteen. Here occurs ᾿Αθήνησι four times (three times in a 
νόμος), Μέγαράδε twice, followed by one occurrence each of Meya- 
ρόθεν, Μαραθῶνάδε, ᾿Ελευσινόθεν, ᾿Ελευσῖνε and ᾿Ολυμπίαζε. 
It is interesting to note that this little collection of forms includes 
all the locative relations, ‘where’, ‘whither’ and ‘ whence’, and in 
variety of words represented is not excelled by any passage in the 
orators, excepting oration LIX of the Demosthenean canon. The 
average per page for this oration is .25, calculating that it contains 
forty pages.” This is comparatively a very high average. 

The second oration affords no examples, and the third gives but 
one, namely : ᾿Αθήνησι. 

Oration IV, which has been transmitted under the name of 
Andocides, but is without doubt spurious, contributes two forms 
to the list—’Odvpurriafe and ᾿Ολχυμπίασι. 


1One or two occurrences in the fragments of Antiphon were not considered 
striking enough to require attention. 

*In this oration and in the following work the ordinary Teubner texts have 
been used. When the pages were not full the calculation was made on the basis 
of 32 lines to the page. Perfect accuracy in such cases is hard to attain. The 
figures are thought to be practically correct. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 7 
For the whole of Andocides the average per page is .16 which, 


though a considerable descent from the high average of the first 
oration, is yet the highest in the Attic orators. 


Locatives in Andocides. 


Μέγαράδε, I. 15. ὅς ὠχετο Μ. ὑπεξελθών 
ζ I. 15. @xovto ἐπ᾽ αὐτον Μ. 
Μεγαρόθεν, I. 84. ἐπειδὴ Τεῦκρος ἦλθε Μ. 
᾿Αθήνησι, 1. 62. οὐ περιεκόπη μόνος τῶν Ἑρμῶν τῶν ᾿᾽Α. 
- I. 90. ἐάν τις δημοκρατίαν καταλύῃ τὴν ’A. 
es I. 97. ὅς ἂν καταλύσῃ τὴν δαμοκρατίαν τὴν ᾽Α. 
εἶ I. 98. ὁπόσοι δὲ ὅρκοι ὀμώμονται ᾽Α. 
Μαραθῶνάδε, 1.107. ἀπαντῆσαι τοῖς βαρβάροις Μ. 
᾿Ἐλευσινόθεν, 1. 111. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἤλθομεν ’E. 
Ἐλευσῖνι, 1. 111. περὶ τῶν γεγενημένων 'E. 
Ὀλυμπίαζε, 1. 182. ἔπειτα ἀρχιθεωρὸν εἰς ᾿Ισθμὸν καὶ ’O. 


᾿Αθήνησι, III. 38. πείσαντες μὲν οὖν A. ποιήσασθαι 
᾿Ολυμπίασι, ΤΥ͂. 25. λέξειν δὲ περὶ τῆς νίκης τῆς ’O. 
Ολυμπίαζε, IV. 26. Διομήδης ἦλθε ζεῦγος ἵππων ἄγων Ὁ. 


Twenty-nine forms to be taken into account for the present pur- 
pose are found in the 228 pages of Lysias. Only eleven of the 
orations are represented in the collection. Orations XIII and X VIT 
contain the largest number proportionally, but much of the signifi- 
cance that might attach to this is neutralized by the fact that the 
result is produced by a natural repetition of one or two forms. 
The high average of oration XIII, which contains eight locatives, 
is produced by Μουνυχίασι, which occurs six times, Μουνυχίαζε 
and ᾿Αθήνηθεν. The decimal for this oration is .33 which, though 
somewhat higher than that for oration I of Andocides, is devoid 
of its interesting features. 

Oration X VII, with less than three pages, furnishes four forms 

-᾿Σφηττοῖ and Κικυννοῖ each repeated. Here again repetition 
accounts for the high average. 

The ‘whence’ relation in Lysias is well represented as is also 
the ‘ whither’ relation, the first having six representatives and the 


1 The better writing of this word is Μουνιχίασι. See Meisterhans, Gram. At. Ins, 


8 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


second five. 


The remaining forms show the ‘ where’ relation which, 


as is usually the case, is the dominating one. 
The average for Lysias entire is .124 which, it will be noted, is 
somewhat lower than that for Andocides. 


Οἴηθεν, Ι 
᾽᾿Ελευσῖνι, ΤΠ. 
τ: VI 


"Exevowobev, VI. 


‘Exevotvade, VILLI. 


Μέγαράδε, XII. 


’"Erevaivace, 


Ὁ x 
᾿Αθήνηθεν, 
Μουνυχίαζε, ΧἼΙΤΙ. 


Μουνυχίασι, ΧἼΤΙ. 
35 ΧΙ]. 
1 XIII. 
% XIII. 
Lonrrot, XVII. 
Κικυννοῖ, XVII. 
Σῴφηττο, XVIL. 
Kixovvot, XVII. 


᾿Αθήνησι, XVIII. 


᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν, XIX. 16. 


XIX. 
XIX. 


“Ῥαμνοῦντι, 
Ἰσθμοῖ, 

/ 
Νεμέᾳ, 


ΧΙ]. 
Μουνυχίασι, ΧἼΤΠΙ. 


ΘΠ: 


Locatives in Lysias. 


16. 


55. 
58. 


5. 


5. 


8. 


8. 


13. 


28. 
63. 


ἔστι δ᾽, ἔφη, ᾿Εροτοσθένης Ο. ὁ ταῦτα 
πράττων 

ἔθαψαν ἐν τῇ αὑτῶν ἜΝ. 

\ \ ’ nf id al 

τὰ δὲ ἐν TOE. ἱερῷ 
ΔΎ / (Wena 

καὶ ὅρκων καθάπερ τοῖς E. 
\ \ lal > / id A 5 

καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον ἀκόντων ὑμῶν Ἔ. 
ξυνθεωρεῖν 

τῆς ἐπιούσης νυκτὸς διέπλευσα Μ. 

ἐλθὼν - - - εἰς Σαλαμῖνα καὶ ’E. 

καθίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν Μ. 

καὶ παρορμίσαντες δύο πλοῖα Μ. ἐδέοντο 

/ - 

παντὶ τρόπῳ ἀπελθεῖν ᾽Α. 

καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς M. 

ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία Μ. ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ- 

ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ ἐκάθητο Μ. 

v4 | or) / 5 an / 3) {ἢ 

ὅτε ἡ ἐκκλησίᾳ M. ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἐγίνετο- 

καὶ τὰ πλοῖα παρασκευάσας Μ. ἔτοιμος 
\ \ \ BA , 54 if 

Kal τὰ μὲν Σ. ἤδη τρία ἔτη μεμίσθωκα, 
τῶν- 

\ \ n 3. τῶν > / a 

δὲ K. καὶ τῆς οἰκίας ἐδικαζόμην τοῖς 
ἔχουσι 
\ / ᾽ PI a Ἂς 

τοὺς μεμισθωμένους παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ Σ. 
χωρίον, 

» lal \ / 

ἔπειτα Tov Κ. τοὺς γείτονας 

“ » a 7 

ὅτι A. τοσοῦτον δύναται 

ἔχω γυναῖκα τὴν Κριτοδήμου θυγατέρα 
τοῦ A. 


οὐκ ἣν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ χωρίδιον μικρὸν Ῥ. 


οἷς ἐνίκησεν ᾽1. καὶ Ν. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 9 


Aexenevobev, XXIII. 2. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι Δ. 


5 XXIII. 8. εἴ τινα γινώσκοιεν A. δημοτευόμενον- 
θήβησ, ΧΧΙΠΠΙΠ. 16. μεταστὰς ἐντεῦθεν 0. μετῴκει 
aC XXIIT. 15. πανταχοῦ μᾶλλον ἢ θ. εἰκὸς ἣν αὐτὸν 
: μετοικῆσαι 


"Erevoivade, XXV. 9. εἰσὶ δὲ οἵτινες τῶν ’E. ἀπογραψαμένων 


Proper names used as locatives are extremely rare in Isocrates, 
there being but ten in the 482 pages. Μαραθῶνι with four occur- 
rences, ᾿Ολυμπίασι with two, together with Δεκελειόθεν, Θήβησι, 
Βατὴθεν and Θεσπιᾶσιεν make up the entire number. 

In Isaeus, with about one third the number of pages contained 
in Isocrates, there are fourteen proper names used as locative 
adverbs. This is an average per Teubner page of .097. Oration 
XI contains one half of the entire number, the average per page 
being a little more than .47. The form ΠΡροσπαλτοῖ heads the 
list, occurring three times. “EXevoive is found twice. The other 
forms occur but once each and are Κεφαλῆσι, Βήσαζε, ᾿Αθήνησι, 
AOnvake, Μουνυχίασι, ᾿Αθμονοῖ, Φλυῆσι, Θριᾶσι, Μελίτγ. 


Loecatives in Isocrates. 


Μαραθῶνι, IV. 91. Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν ζηλοῦντες τὴν πολιν 
τῆς Μ. μάχης 

Μαραθῶνι, V. 141. ἐκ δὲ τῆς Μ. μάχης 

Μαραθῶνι, VIII. 38. εἰ δὲ τοῖς Μ. τοὺς βαρβάρους νικήσασι 

Δεκελειᾶσιν, VIII. 84. καὶ τοῦ τείχους ἤδη τοῦ Δ. ἑστηκότος 

Θήβησι, XIT. 118. τοῦτο γὰρ ἀποδεῖξαι βουλόμενος διῆλθον 
τὰ γενόμενα Θ. 

Θεσπιᾶσιν, XIV. 14. ταλικούτου στρατεύματος ὄντος Θ. 

Μαραθῶνι, XV. 806. ποῖος δέ τις ὁ τοὺς βαρβάρους Μ. τῇ 
μάχη νικήσας 

Ὀλυμπίασι, XVI. 25. ἵππων γὰρ ξεύγει πρῶτος ᾿Αλκμέων τῶν 
πολιτῶν 'O. ἐνίκησε 

Ὀλυμπίασι, XVI. 49. δεύτερον δ᾽ εἰ Sia τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς νίκην 
τὴν Ο. ἀτιμωθήσομαι 

Βατῆθεν, XVIII. 10. δίαιταν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς ἐπιτρέψαμεν Νικο- 


/ 
μάχῳ B. 
Out Re 
Ψ ᾿ ΟἹ CHE Ν 
4 ¥ 
fmeniv BE} 
. #». Q a & 


10 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


Locatives in Isaeus. 


Κεφαλῆσι, 11.381. ὀμόσαντες ἡμῖν πρὸς τῷ βωμῷ τῷ τῆς 
᾿Αφροδίτης τῆς K. 

Bnoa€e, III. 22. Ἐξενοκλῆς τοινυν B. μὲν ἰὼν εὶς τὸ épya- 
στήριον 

᾿Αθήνησι, TV. 8. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἐπιδεδημηκότος τοῦ Νικο- 
στρατου ἕνδεκα ἐτῶν ᾿᾽Α. 

᾿Αθήναζξε, V.29. ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἐπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν ’A, 


> 3 / 
οὐκ ἀφίκετο 
Ν ς a > AF / 
Μουνυχίασι, VI. 27. καὶ ἡ ναῦς αὐτῷ ἐξώρμει M. 


᾿Αθμονοῖ, VI. 33. ἀποδίδοται ἀγρὸν μὲν A. πέντε καὶ 
ἐβδομήκοντα μνῶν ᾿Αντιφάνει, 

Φλυῆσι, VIII. 35. Κίρων γὰρ ἐκέκτητο ὀυσίαν - - - ἀγρὸν 
μὲν Φ. 

᾿Ελευσῖνι, ΧΙ. 41. καὶ τον θ΄ αὑτοῦ ἔδωκεν ἀγρὸν τὸν *E. 
δυδιν ταλάντοιν 

᾿᾽Θριᾶσι, ΧΙ. 42. ἀγρὸν μὲν ©. tev? ἡμιτάλαντα εὑρί- 
σκοντα, 

Μελίέτῃ, « ( οἰκίαν δὲ Μ. τρισχιλίων ἐωνημένην, 

᾽᾿Ελευσῖνι, «  « — ἄλλην δε Ἔ,. πεντακοσίων, 

Προσπαλτοῖ, ΧΙ. 44. χωρίον ἐν θἰνόῃ πεντακισχιλίων καὶ ΤΠ. 
τρισχιλίων. 


Προσπαλτοῖ, ΧΙ. 49. Χαιρέλεως δὲ τὸ II. χωρίον κατέλιπεν- 
Προδπαλτοῖ, ΧΙ. 49. καταλειφθέντος δὲ τοῦ II. χωρίου καὶ 
γιγνομένου τῆς ἐκείνων ἀδελφῆς - 


If due allowance be made for hypotheses and vacant spaces the 
orations transmitted to us under the name of Demosthenes fill 
approximately 1150 pages. Distributed through this corpus very 
irregularly 132 forms appear that must be taken into account for 
the present purpose. Of this number 83, or very nearly 63 per 
cent., are clustered together in four orations, comprised in less than 
one hundred pages, and all classed by Blass as spurious.’ The 
orations referred to are XXXIV, XXXV, LVI, LIX. In Ora- 
tion XXXYV, containing twenty-nine locatives, the average per 


1 Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit, dritte Abt., pp. 476, 502, 515, 520. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 11 


page is 1.87 which is considerably larger than that yielded by any 
other portion of the Attic canon. In this oration there are twenty 
occurrences of ’A@yvate, four of ᾿Αθήνηθεν and two of ᾿Αθήνησι. 
Ἱστιαιόθεν, which appears three times, completes the list. 

In XXXIV the average drops to 1.94, Here the dominating 
form is not ᾿Αθήναζξε, asin XXXYV, but ᾿Αθήνησι, of which there 
are twelve occurrences. ᾿Αθήναζε, on the other hand, is found but 
four times. The remaining form is ᾿Αθήνηθεν, which also occurs 
four times. 

Next in order is LVI where are thirteen locatives and thirteen 
-pages, giving as the average the unit 1. Here again the prevailing 
form is ᾿Αθήναζε with seven occurrences, followed by ᾿Αθήνηθεν 
with four, and finally by ᾿Αθήνησι with two. 

In LIX its average is reduced to .51. In this speech there is 
some relief from the wearisome heaping up of the same or similar 
forms which characterizes the other three of the group under con- 
sideration. There are but two occurrences of ᾿Αθήνησι and four 
of ᾿Αθήναζε. Other forms are ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν, ᾿Αφίδνηζε, ᾿Ελευσῖνι, 
᾽᾿Ἐκάληθεν, Korwvi bev, Ἰζεφαλῆθεν, Μαραθῶνάδε, and Πλαταιᾶσι. 
For variety this collection is noteworthy. Nine different words are 
represented in the twenty locatives and all of the locative relations 
—where, whither and whence. The forms in -@ev here, contrary to 
the general rule, outrank the others. This is due to the fact that it is 
necessary to take many depositions ; the names of many witnesses are 
consequently given in an approved legal way, as in § 61: Τιμό- 
στρατος ᾿Εἰκάληθεν - - - - - Νίκιππος Κεφαλῆθεν μαρτυροῦσιν." 

To the nine words represented in LIX but nine more need be 
added to complete the number found in the whole of Demosthenes, 
some of which words are represented by a single occurrence. As 
already stated, of the 132 forms in Demosthenes 83 belong to the 
four orations just considered, which haying 81 pages give a little 
more than the unit 1 as the average. For the remainder of Demos- 
thenes the average sinks to the insignificant decimal .047. If the 
public speeches alone were considered the average there would be 
found to be considerably less than this. 


1 The form in -θεν was by no means the most common form in cases of this sort. 
It had a narrow range in fact. Far more common in the orators and inscriptions 
are the adjectival forms in -evs, -ἰος, etc., for example, 261: ᾿Ενάλκης Φαληρέυς. 


ΠΩ Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


It is interesting to note also that 104 of the 132 locatives in 
Demosthenes, more than 78 per cent. belong to pseudo-Demos- 
thenes, accepting the view of Blass regarding the genuineness of 
the speeches. 


Locatives in Demosthenes. 


᾿Αθήναζε---Ψ 11.185; IX. 43; XX. 31; XXXI.1, 8,9; XXXIV. 
11, 36, 42,43; XXXYV. 3, 10, 11, 11, 11, 13, 24, 24, 
25, 32, 35, 37, 37, 38, 50, 50, 51, 51, 52, 538; L. 18; 
LVI. 3, 27, 36, 36, 40, 42, 45; LIX. 25, 32, 64, 108. 

’"AOnvno.— VIII. 66; X. 68; XVII. 28; X VIII. 66, 197; XIX, 
81; XX. 29; XXXIV. 4, 23, 25; 31, 31, 32, 37, 37, 
42, 42, 48, 45; XX XV. 16, 51; XLII. 71; XLV. 
17; XbVI. 26; ΙΧ 26; Tas ay een 
LIX. 35, 85. 

"AOnvnPev— XIX. 229; XXXII. 1; XXXII. 9; XXXIV. 7, 
27,40; XXXV. 10, 32, 52,53; LVI. 27, 36, 36, 45. 

’AXo7rexn Gev—X VIII. 164; X XI. 82,121; XXII. 60; XXITI. 
13; XXV. 72; LVIII. 35; LIX. 25,25, 45, 47, 47. 

᾿Αραφῆνδε---Χ LIL. 70. 

"Adidvale—LIX. 9. 

Bpavpwvoder—LILYV. 25. 

"Erevotvi—_X XI. 158; LY. 28; LIX. 116. 

’Exevotvade—X VIII. 177, 184. 

"Exarnbev—L IX. 61. 

“στιαιόθεν---Χ X XV. 20, 20, 34. 

Kv6npovde—XLII. 5. / 

Korovn0ev—LIX. 22, 23. 

Kegdarn0ev—LIX. 61, 71, 71. 

Μαραθῶνι---Χ 111. 21, 22; XIV. 80; XVIII. 208; XIX. 312; 
ΧΧΊΙΠΙ. 1960, 198. 

Μαραθῶνάδε---Τ ΓΧ. 94. 

Méyapade—X XIX. 9. 

Οἰῆθεν---Χ XXIII. 14. 

Ὀλυμπίασι---Χ XI. 145; LVILI. 66. 

Προσπαλτόθεν---Χ LILI. 64. 

ΤΠ] λαταιᾶσι---,.1Χ.. 96, 97. 

Yarapyivi— XIX. 312, 


Locative Expressions in the Attie Orators. 13 


The locatives that show themselves in Aeschines and Lycurgus 
call for nothing more than a passing notice in this connection. 
Those in Aeschines, seventeen in all, are distributed rather evenly 
throughout the speeches. The decimal for this orator is .089. 
The highest average is furnished by the first oration where it 
rises to .12. 

Lycurgus furnishes four forms, all of them referring to Athens, 
viz.: ᾿Αθήνησι, ᾿Αθήνηθεν (twice), ᾿Αθήναζε. 


Locatives in Aeschines. 


᾿Αθήνησι, I. 89. εἰ δ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἀγών ἐστιν ᾿Αθήνησιν 
Σ φηττοῖ, I. 91, ἐσχατιὰν δὲ Σφηττοῖ 
᾿Αλωπεκῆσι, I. 97. ᾿Αλωπεκῆσι δ᾽ ἕτερον χωρίον 

τ I. 99. τὸ δ᾽ ᾿Αλωπεκῆσι χωρίον 


᾿Αμθιτροπῆσι, 1. 101. 


ἀγρὸν ᾿Αμθιτροπῆσιν 


᾿Αλωπεκῆσι, 1.105. καὶ τοῦ χωρίου τοῦ ᾿Αλωπεκῆσι καὶ- 
᾿Αθήνησι, 1.108. τὸν ᾿Αθήνησιν ὑβριστὴν οὐκ εἰς τοὺς 
ἄλλους μόνον, 
τ II. 23. ᾿Αθήνησι μὲν ἦμεν ἄξιοι τῆς ὑμετέρος 
πίστεως 
ἐξ Il. 36. εἰ τῶν ᾿Αθήνησι πραγμάτων ἐπιλέλησμαι 
big II. 58. οὐκ ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Αθήνησιν 
εἴ II. 98. καὶ τὸν Κερσοβλέπτην ᾿Αθήνησι μὲν - 
«6 IIL. 91. ὑπὲρ τὸν μὴ συνεδρεύειν ᾿Αθήνησι Χαλκι- 
δέας 
᾿Αθήναζε, III. 98, ἥκεν συνεδρεύσοντας ᾿Αθήναζε εἰς τὴν 
πανσέληνον. 
ἐ 111.114. καὶ εὶς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἀποσταλήσεσθαι 
᾿Αθήναζε τοῦ - 
᾿Αθήνησι, 111.114. ἐφ᾽ dre βοηθήσειν τοῖς ᾿Αμθισσεῦσιν 
᾿Αθήνησι - 
Σαλαμῖνι, [Π1].181. ὅτ᾽ ἐν τῇ Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίᾳ τὸν Πέρσην 


᾿Ολυμπίασι, III. 189. 


EVLKATE 
᾿Ολυμπίασι στεθανωθῆναι ~ 


14 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


Tyecurgus. 
᾿Αθήνησι, 810. τῶν οἰκούντων ᾿Αθήνησι 
᾿Αθήνηθεν, 19. καὶ ἐκπλεύσαντα ᾿Αθήνηθεν 
Ὃ 21. καὶ ἀφικνεῖτο ᾿Αθήνηθεν πλοῖα εἰς τὴν 
“Ῥόδον, 


τῷ 93. ὅτι ἂν ἔλθῃ ᾿Αθήναζε τεύξεται τῶν νόμων. 


Statistic for all the Orators. 


A Onvnoi.—Andocides, I. 62, 96, 97, 98; ILI. 38. Lysias, X VIII. 
13. Isaeus, [V. 8. Dem., VIII. 66; X. 68; XVII. 
28; XVIII. 66,197; XIX. 81; XX.29; XXXTY. 
4, 23, 25, 31, 31, 32, 37, 37, 42, 42,438,45. XXXYV. 
16,515 XL: 11; XLV. 17 ΙΝ 20 ee 
26; LV.3; LVI. 3,17; LIX. 35, 85. Aeschines, I. 
89, 108; IL. 23, 36, 58, 93; ITI. 91, 114. 
Lycurgus § 16. (46) 
"AOnvate—lIsaeus, ΓΝ. 29. Dem., VII. 18; IX. 43; XX. 31; 
XXXII. 1, 8,9; XXXIV. 11, 36, 42,43; XXXY. 
3, 10, 11, 11, 11, 18, 24, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 37, 38; 50, 
50, 51, 51, 52,53; L. 18; LVI. 3, 27, 36, 36, 40, 42, 
45; LIX. 25, 32, 64,103. Aeschines, ITI. 98, 114. 
Lycurgus, § 93. (46) 
"A Onvnbev—Lysias, XIII. 25. Dem., XIX. 229; XXXII. 1; 
AXXITT. 9 XRT 72740 Oe ΟΝ  ἸΟῚ 
52, 53; LVI. 27, 36, 36, 45. 
Lycurgus, § 19, § 21. (17) 
᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν---" για, XTX. 16. Dem., XVIII. 164; X XI. 82, 
121; ΧΧΊ ΘΟ: 320 13) ΧΙ 


35; LIX. 25, 25, 45, 47, 47. (13) 
*AXwtrexjot—Aeschines, I. 97, 99, 105. (3) 
"Apadjvade—Dem., XLITI. 70. (1) 
"Adidvafe—Dem., LIX. 9. (1) 
*A@puovot—lIsaeus, VI. 33. (1) 
"Auditpomjov—Aeschines, I. 101. (1) 
Batjdev—Isocrates, X VIII. 10. (1) 


Byoafe—Isaeus, ILI. 22. (1) 


Locative Expressions in the Attie Orators. 15 


Bpavpwvodev—Dem., LIV. 25. (1) 
Aexerevobev—Lysias, X XIII. 2, 3. (2) 
AexeXecdor—Isaeus, VIII. 84. (1) 


’Erevoivi—Andocides, I. 111. Lysias, II. 10; VI. 4. 
Isaeus, XI. 41, 42. Dem., XXI. 158; LV. 28; 


LIX. 116. (8) 
"Erevoivdde—Lysias, VIII. 5; XII.52; XXV.9. Dem., X VITI. 

177, 184. (5) 
’"Exevowobev—Andocides, I. 111. Lysias, VI. 45. (2) 
"ExddrnGev—Dem., LIX. 61. (1) 
@comidow—lIsoc., XIV. § 14. 
@7Bno.—Lysias, XXIII. 15, 15. Isocrates, XII. 173. (3) 
@piaci—lIsaeus, XI. 42. (1) 
"To@uoi—Lysias, XIX. 63. (2) 
‘Iotiavobev—Dem., XX XV. 20, 20, 34. (3) 
Kexvvvot—Lysias, X VII. 5, 8. (2) 
Kv@npovde—Dem., XLII. 5. (1) 
Korwv7Gev—Dem., X XI. 64; LIX. 22, 23. (3) 
Kegar7y@ev—Dem., LIX. 61, 71, 71. (9) 
Kegar7 ov.—lIsaeus, IT. 31. (1) 
Méyapade—Andocides, I. 15, 15. Liysias, XII. 17. Dem, 

ἘΧΌΧΟΙΟΧΕ 5: (4) 
MeryapoGev—Andocides, I. 34. (1) 


Mapadér—Isoc., [V. 91; V.147; VIII. 38; XV. 306. Dem., 
XII. 21, 22; XTV. 30; XVIII. 208; XIX.-312; 


ROSE 190: 1198: ᾿ (11) 
Mapadévade—Andocides, I. 107; LIX. 94. (2) 
Menditn—lIsaeus, XI. 42. (1) 
Movvvyiaci—Lysias, XIII. 24, 25, 32, 52, 55, 58.  Isaeus, 

Δ ΠΩ: (7) 
Movrvyiafe—Lysias, XIII. 29. (1) 


Neywéa—Lysias, XIX. 63. 
ὈΟλυμπίασι---Απά., TV: 25. Isoc., XVI. 25,49. Dem., Χ ΧΙ. 


145; LVIII. 66. Aes., IIT. 189. (6) 
‘Orvuprriate—Andocides, I. 132; IV. 26. (2) 
’Oin@ev—Lysias, I. 16. Dem., XX XIII. 14. (2) 
TAatacadoi—Dem., LIX. 96, 97. (2) 


IIpoo7manrtot—Isaeus, XI. 44, 49. (2) 


16 Locative Expressions in the Attie Orators. 


IIpoo7rantobev—Dem., XLITI. 64. 
“Payvobvtt—Lysias, XTX. 28. 
Xdnrroi—Lysias, XVII. 5, 8. Aeschines, I. 97. 


Larapivi—Dem., XTX. 312. Aeschines, ITI. 181. 


Prvjo1—Isaeus, VIII. 35. 


Table of Averages.’ 


Andocides, . . | Average, 16 
Oration I, 20 
Lysias...... | SETAE, 1 
Oration XIII, 38 
Isocrates.... Average, 02 
Taneus... iw 4-3 \ Average, 097 ... 
Oration XI. AT ea 
( Average, a bs a 
| Oration XXXV, 1.87 
Ee. ©.@.@ BYE 1.34 
| ey ales Val. Ἵ 
Demosthenes. | Cad dts Pb 51 
Excepting XXXIV, XXXV, 
LVI, LIX, OATES 
| Orations XXXIV, XXXV, 
[ LVI, LIX, 1 ate 
: Average, 089 ας 
eros { Oration I, ADocee it 
Lycurgus. .. Average, 088 ... 
II. 


THE Sratistics EXAMINED. 


Among the orators of the Attic canon, the one most conspicuous 
for the number of locatives, as has been seen already, is Andocides. 
His prominence in this respect makes it pertinent for us to inquire 


1Dinarchus is like Antiphon, already referred to, in not exhibiting any loca- 
tive proper names. MHyperides, owing to the fragmentary character of what 


remains of his speeches, was not examined. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 17 


into his rank as an orator, and to ask if this in any way affects or 
makes clear the standing of the locative. The notices we have re- 
garding Andocides from antiquity are scanty. This of itself is suffi- 
cient to mark him as deficient in the characteristics which mark as 
noteworthy the pleader and orator. His work is that of an amateur 
lacking adequate training, yet not wholly devoid of shrewdness and 
wit. What antiquity says of him seems to indicate that he must be 
regarded as an authority for the idiom of his own time. The two 
casual references to him in Dionysios would seem to justify this 
view. In one of these references he speaks of Thucydides as using 
a language differing from that of Andocides,' and in the other he 
speaks of Lysias as the Attic standard for his period, ‘as may be 
inferred from the speeches of Andocides.’* Quintilian’s language 
shows the contempt he feels for him,® while that of Hermogenes is 
still more severe.* 

Assuming that the locative is a favorite construction with Ando- 
cides, as the facts seem to warrant us in doing, even if it should not 
share in the general contempt which is felt for the orator himself, it 
has nothing to boast of because of such associations. On the other 
hand there is the suggestion that, since Andocides is representative 
of the spoken idiom of his time, the preference shown by this orator 
for the locative is due to the more colloquial character of his style.® 
This can be nothing more than a suggestion and the facts in general 
are in conflict with it. In the higher spheres everywhere the pre- 
positional forms take precedence over the locative forms. This of 
itself is a strong indication that they also are the forms cherished by 
the conservatism of the common dialect, and the ones retained ex- 
cept in expressions which from frequent use had degenerated into 


De Thuc.51. πολλῶν γενομένων ᾿Αθήνησι - - - - ῥητόρων Te kal φιλοσόφων, ὀυδεὶς 
αὐτῶν κέχρηται ταύτῃ τῇ διαλέκτῳ (that of Thuc.), οὐδ᾽ of περὶ ᾿Ανδοκίδη κιτ.λ. 

*De Lys. 2. ὡς ἔστι τεκμήρασθαι τοῖς τε ᾿Ανδοκίδου λόγοις, καὶ τοῖς Κρίτου καὶ 
ἄλλοις συχνοῖς. 

3 XII. 10, 21. Nam quis erit hic Atticus? Sit Lysias---- Non igitur iam 
usque ad Coccum et Andocidem remittemur. 

*Hermog., Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Spengel, II. 416): ἀδιάρθρωτος γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς σχήμασι 
καὶ ἀδιευκρίνητος καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἐπισυνάπτει τε καὶ περιβάλλει ἀτάκτως διὰ TO ταῖς 
ἐπεμβολαῖς χωρὶς εὐκρινείας χρῆσθαι, ὅθεν ἔδοξέ τισι φλύαρος καὶ ἄλλως ἀσαφὴς εἶναι. 

5E.S. Burgess, University Circular, Apl., 1881. Regarding Andocides as repre- 
sentative of the spoken idiom, their source in colloquial speech is thus suggested. 
9 


— 


18 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


that fixity of condition represented by the adverb. It would be 
strange if Andocides alone should permit an outcrop of the vulgar 
usage in his treatment of the forms under consideration, while the 
other orators of the canon avoided them almost entirely, or used 
them freely only under the pressure of circumstances. If any safe 
conclusion may be drawn from the conditions presented by Ando- 
cides and by the surface facts in general, it is that any considerable 
use of the locative should be regarded as characteristic of the author, 
or as a local phenomenon rather than a reflection of popular usage. 

As far as Andocides himself is concerned, he secures the full credit, 
whatever that may be worth, of using the locative deliberately and 
whenever opportunity offers. This is true of every case where there 
is opportunity for choice, unless a line from the spurious fourth ora- 
tion be cited to the contrary : Σκέψασθε δὲ καὶ THY ἄλλην ἀποδη- 
μίαν τὴν εἰς ᾿Ολυμπίαν ws διέθετο. Here a departure from the 
technical signification ' may account for the variation in form. Color 
is given to this suggestion by the fact that in this same oration 
(§ 26), in what may be considered a more technical passage, the loca- 
tive ᾿Ολυμπίαζε is used. 

Antiphon and Dinarchus require consideration because of the 
absence of locatives from their extant speeches. Until an examina- 
tion of their orations is made it would be premature to assume that 
the absence of such forms is due to a conscious avoidance of them, 
and is so far a mark of style. It will be found in the case of Anti- 
phon that he had no occasion to use the locative, his speeches being 
virtually without a locus. Prepositional expressions such as ἐκ 
Μεγάρων, ἐν Μαραθῶνι, etc., which could be turned into the equiva- 
lent adverbial form without conflicting with Attic usage, do not 
appear in his orations. In the case of Antiphon there is presented 
then a condition from which nothing more than the negative con- 
clusion safely may be drawn that he had no need of either form in 
cases where there was opportunity for choice. As to what his usage 
might have been under other circumstances, we can only surmise. 

For Dinarchus the case is totally different. In his speeches 
where there is free opportunity for choice, the selection made in 


1Tn technical language, aiming at the greatest possible clearness, if anywhere, 
a congealed form would be more appropriate than one having the mobility of the 
vrepositional phrase. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 19 


every case is favorable to the prepositional form. For instance ἐν 
θήβαις is used, but not θήβησι; εἰς Μέγαρα, but not Μέγαράδε ; ἐν 
Ὀλυμπίᾳ, but not ᾿Ολυμπίασι; εἰς ᾿Ολυμπίαν, but not ᾿Ολυμπίαζε. 
The equivalent adverbs in these cases are all good Attic, and appear 
elsewhere in the orators. 

Notwithstanding the quarrel between Andocides and Dinarchus 
as to which shall be entitled to last place among the orators of the 
canon, Dinarchus in antiquity was credited with considerable ability 
of a certain kind. Dionysios says several of his speeches show some- 
thing of the Λυσιακὸς yapaxtyp.' He was a close student of 
Demosthenes” and Hyperides, and whatever may have been his 
deficiencies as an artist, he was doubtless able to interpret mechani- 
cal characteristics and tendencies sufficiently well. He serves the 
purpose of this study better because of ‘ his dependence on imitation 
or on plagiarism,’ * and because, as Dionysios further says of him, 
he has no characteristic (ἴδιον) peculiar to himself. Viewed in this 
light, his avoidance of the locative becomes much more significant, 
and credits the prepositional form not only with his favor, but in- 
directly with that of those whose imitator he was. Certain it is, 
however, that in Dinarchus the adverb is consciously avoided and 
the more stately prepositional form used in its place. What was 
devoid of significance for Antiphon becomes for Dinarchus a sug- 
gestive mark of style. 

But Dinarchus is not the only one to whom we may turn for 
information on the question under consideration. Lycurgus, who 
precedes him in time and outranks him as an orator, shows the 
same pronounced tendency to use the prepositional form when he 
might have employed the adverbial. Lycurgus, though an inferior, 
stands in the same category ‘with Hyperides, Aeschines and Demos- 
thenes, who illustrate the maturity of civil eloquence.’* The pupil 
and imitator of Isocrates, he nevertheless affects the archaic dignity 


1De Dinar. 5. τοῦ μὲν Λυσιακοῦ χαρακτῆρος ἔν τε τῷ περὶ Μυησικλέους λόγῳ καὶ 
ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λυσικράτους ὑπὲρ Νικυμάχου, καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς. 

? De Dinar. ὃ.---τοῖς Ὑπερείδου καὶ τοῖς Δημοσθένους λόγοις καὶ τούτων πολλὰ δή τις 
ἔχει παραδείγματα καθέσθαι. 

5 Jebb, Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, Vol. 11. 374. 

*Hermogenes. Περὶ id., p. 416, Spengel, does not grant this, but places him 
last of the ten. 

SJebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, Vol. 11. p. 375. 


20 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


of style shown in Antiphon, and even goes beyond it. Not a little 
significance consequently attaches to the fact that he avoids the loca- 
tive. In the one speech of Lycurgus that remains to us the locative 
referring to Athens, as already noted, is used four times. Excepting 
these cases the prepositional form is employed. Instead of Μέγαράδε, 
eis Μέγαρα appears (§§ 21, 25). Instead of Μεγαρόθεν, ἐκ Μεγάρων 
is found (δ 28). In ὃ 80 ἐν Πλαταιαῖς is preferred to Πλαταιᾶσι, 
and in ὃ 104 ἐν Μαραθῶνι to Μαραθῶνι. 

The extremely small number of locative expressions in Isocrates 
invites to a comparison of his orations with the others already con- 
sidered. The similarity between Isocrates and Antiphon in this 
respect has been noted."| The resemblance is not only in the fact 
of the rarity, but in the cause which produces it. The condition 
for Antiphon, as already pointed out, is devoid of significance. 
This statement applies with equal force to Isocrates also. If the 
equivalent prepositional expression is not totally absent from Iso- 
crates as in Antiphon, it is nearly so. In XVI. 17 ἐκ Δεκελείας 
is found where on general principles the adverb Δεκελειόθεν might 
have been used.? In X. 19 εἰς ᾿Αφιδναν is used for ᾿Αφίδναξε ; 
and in XII. 168 ἐν θήβαις is found. In XII. 173, however, 
θήβησι is used. Finally in XII. 195 εἰς Μαραθῶνα takes the 
place of the adverbial Μαραθῶνάδε. This small number of prepo- 
sitional representatives in such a large body of material of course 
warrants the conclusion that Isocrates, like Antiphon, exhibits a 
state of affairs in which neither the locative nor its equivalent was 
required. 

The investigation made thus far shows a condition of things in 
which Andocides, with his marked preference for the locative form, 
represents one extreme, while Lycurgus and Dinarchus, with a 
preference for the prepositional form just as clearly defined, repre- 
sent the other. An examination of the orators lying between these 
extremes reveals the fact that there is a clearly discernible advance 
from the locative to the prepositional type.* 

1See Burgess, Johns Hopkins University Circulars, April, 1881. 

*In practice, however, there seems to be little doubt that this adverbial form 


was confined to cases where it had a technical value, as for instance in the example 


from Lysias XXIII. 3: ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι Δεκελειόθεν. 
3 ΤΆ is always to be kept in mind in a study of this sort that, owing to the small 
amount of material with which one has to work, it is necessary to be content often 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 21 


If Lysias is compared with Andocides there is no longer found 
to be a rigid adherence to the adverbial type, but the prepositional 
also has its representatives. For example in XIII. 14 ἐξ ’EXev- 
civos appears. The adverbial equivalent of this, ᾿Ελευσινόθεν, 
also is found, but in the spurious sixth (δ 45). In the doubtful 
Epitaphios (II. 45) the prepositional ἐν ᾿Ισθμῷ occurs. The cor- 
responding Ἴσθμοϊ is found in XIX. 63. In the Epitaphios 
appears also εἰς Μαραθῶνα. The adverbial form does not occur 
in Lysias. 

The tendency shown by Isocrates is sufficiently indicated by what 
has been said of him in another connection (page 20). It is there 
seen that he makes use of the prepositional form in three places. 
Compared with the whole number of locatives used by him this is 
a large proportion and indicates clearly enough that the adverbial 
form was regarded with no special reverence by him. This sugges- 
tion is strengthened by the fact that the locatives that are used by 
him have the least possible color, appearing in expressions for the 
most part that had taken on the character of formulae. 

Isaeus contributes to this branch of the inquiry little that is worth 
noting. He makes use of but one prepositional expression for which 
there is the corresponding adverbial form, viz: ἐν ᾿Ελευσίῖνι (V. 42) 
instead of ’EXevoive which he uses twice elsewhere.' The range of 
usage shown in Isaeus is very narrow. With two exceptions the 
‘where’ relation only is made use of, which is more firmly fixed in 
the language than the other two relations. This fact coupled with 
the highly forensic character of his speeches would partly at least 
account for any apparent lack of freedom in the use of these forms. 
The inclination to the prepositional type would doubtless have been 
clearer had there been a larger proportion of the other locative re- 
lations in his orations. 

An examination of the examples yielded by Demosthenes is more 
satisfactory since he shows an unmistakable inclination to use the 
form with the preposition. The following examples of this type 


with mere hints or suggestions. If these, however, all point in the same direction 
they acquire a cumulative value which amounts to certainty. 

1 The MS. readings as given in the adopted texts have been accepted in the pas- 
sages under discussion. The’ emendations urged by Cobet are referred to in 
Chapter III of this study. 


22 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


are found: εἰς "Adudvay (XVIII. 37), εἰς "EXevoiva (XVIII. 
37),' εἰς Μαραθῶνα (LV. 34), ἐν θήβαις (VIII. 65, X. 67, XVIII. 
177, XIX. 127, XX. 76), εἰς Μέγαρα (XXV. 56, XXXV. 28, 
LIX. 35, 37, 49), ἐν Πλαταιαῖς (XVIII. 208), ἐν Μουνυχίᾳ 
(XVIII. 107),? εἰς ᾿Αθήνας (LVI. 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 28, 27, 29, 42, 
49). The number of words represented in the prepositional class, 
it is to be noted, is proportionally quite large. There are altogether 
but eighteen words employed to produce the 132 locatives of Demos- 
thenes. Of this eighteen nearly two-thirds are represented but once 
or twice. To the remaining one-third ᾿Α θῆναι belongs, repeated 
eighty-six times in the various locative relations. A mere state- 
ment of these facts makes it sufficiently clear what the tendency in 
the Demosthenes corpus is.’ 

The lines of usage in Demosthenes are in perfect harmony with 
those in Aeschines who is perhaps more pronounced in his preference 
for the prepositional form. He uses ἐν Μαραθῶνι (11. 75, III. 
181, 186, 259), ἐν θήβαις (111. 138, 142, 148, 150), ἐν ἸΠλαταιαῖς 
(II. 75, Π|1. 259). For these Aeschines furnishes no adverbial 
equivalents. Of the seventeen locative forms in Aeschines ten refer 
to Athens, eight of them being in the ‘where’ relation. The seven 
remaining forms are all ‘where’ forms of the most rigid type, 
excepting one or two under the control of local influences. 


1 Forms like this and the preceding found in the spurious Ψαφίσματα are given 
in every case. They harmonize with the general tendency, and in no wise vitiate 
the conclusions. 

2 See treatment of this word, Chapter III. 

’There is a suggestion of a difference between Demosthenes and pseudo- 
Demosthenes in the use of the locative and its equivalent. The inference has 
been drawn from statements already made that the bulk of the locatives con- 
tributed by Demosthenes are from the spurious speeches. They are there for 
reasons that, apart from any question of preference, are perfectly patent to ordi- 
nary scrutiny. But there appears to be a slight difference between Demosthenes 
spurious and Demosthenes genuine. In the first Philippic (7 34) is the clause 
τὰ τελευταῖ εἰς Μαραθῶν᾽ ἀπέβη, while in the spurious production numbered LIX 
(2 94) occurs the expression ἐβοήθησαν Μαραθῶνάδε. Again, in XVIII (208) 
occurs καὶ τοὺς ἐμ Πλαταιαῖς παραταξαμένους, but in LIX (96) μάχην Πλαταιᾶσι 
and again in 3 97 the same expression. The phrase εἰς ΓΑφιδναν in XVIII. 37 is 
of no service in this connection, occurring in a Ψήφισμα. These examples are of 
course not: sufficient to furnish grounds for any conclusion, but in conjunction 
with the general trend of the examples furnished by the orators, they afford at 
least a hint worthy of some consideration. 


Locative Expressions in the Attie Orators. 23 


The tendency which has thus been traced, in the earlier orators, 
Lysias, Isocrates and Isaeus, is very faint, and if it were considered 
in these alone, it might perhaps be called a mere fancy. When, 
however, it becomes more pronounced in the successive stages, and 
passes through Demosthenes and Aeschines on a rising scale to its 
culmination in Lycurgus, the imitator of Isocrates, and Dinarchus, 
called by Dionysios the ἄγροικος Demosthenes, conjecture gives 
place to certainty, and the statement that ‘there is a clearly dis- 
cernible advance from the locative to the prepositional type’, is 
proved. If Andocides made use of the locative form to produce a 
heightened effect, which was probably the case, it soon lost its power 
to produce this result, through becoming commonplace, if for no 
other reason. To produce the desired effect it became necessary 
consequently for the later orators to return to the original preposi- 
tional type—the type intrinsically more stately and dignified. 

The lists of local forms already given will show it to be a fact 
that in the earlier orators few of the local forms refer to Athens, 
while in Demosthenes, in the private speeches, such references com- 
prise nearly the entire number. This is accidental, and has nothing 
more than local significance. It would be quite incorrect to assume 
that while the locative relations in general do not maintain them- 
selves, those having reference to Athens show an increase.’ That 
the locative relations in general do not maintain themselves is true, 
as has been seen. In regard to the second part of the statement 
that those having reference to Athens show an increase it is to be 
said that although the references to Athens do greatly preponderate 
in the later period this is due solely to a local accumulation, and 
there are no traces whatever of a progressive increase due to a 
modification of style. When Andocides had occasion to refer to 
Athens he did so with the appropriate locative form. The same 
may be said of Lysias who furnishes two examples, and of Isaeus 
with the same number. In Andocides there are five such references, 


‘Burgess, J. H. U. Circular, April, 1881. The earlier orators used the locative 
endings only with places in or near Attica, or the seats of national games. Demos- 
thenes and his contemporaries failed to maintain this use of the locative with 
neighboring places, but increased the use with Athens. Of examples of locative 
endings those with Athens, therefore, constitute in the earlier orations but a small 
part, in the later, almost the entire number. 


24 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


but neither in him nor in the other two mentioned does the prepo- 
sitional equivalent appear. The large corpus of Isocrates yields no 
example of either type. The conditions presented in these orations 
give not the slightest hint of any design in the usage, tending to an 
increase in numbers. It is without warning that we come to the 
great accumulation of forms referring to Athens in those spurious 
productions in the Demosthenean canon numbered XXXIV, 
XXXV, LVI, LIX. Here the locative forms of ᾿Αθῆναι appear 
sixty-four times; in the whole canon of Attic oratory (excepting 
Hyperides) there are but one hundred and nine. Whatever interest 
and significance this heaping up of forms may have, the conditions 
show that it is purely local. Nothing elsewhere leads to it; nothing 
points to it. The same words appear again and again until the 
formal conditions of contract and agreement are completely set forth. 
These speeches abound in legal technicalities, and are peculiarly 
fertile ground consequently for the hard unyielding locative, which 
meets the temporary requirements. Moreover, repetition was a 
part of the speaker’s purpose. The successful pleader knows that 
one or two statements of the salient points of a case are not suffi- 
cient thoroughly to impress the jury. In addition to this the 
necessities of the points involved required repetition whether the 
speaker desired it or not. This appears on the surface. These 
orations can not be referred to consequently as having any bearing 
upon the general question of usage from the standpoint of numbers. 
In the corpus of Demosthenes, excepting the four orations under 
consideration, there is no noteworthy accumulation of forms, neither 
is there in his contemporaries. ‘The facts show that the locative in 
general fell into disfavor, and that the locatives of ᾿Αθῆναι pre- 
dominate in the later period because of accidental circumstances. 

It is worthy of note at this point that the local endings betoken 
familiarity, and are found attached only to such terms as occur in 
common use. This suggests a desire for ease and quickness of 
utterance where it would do the most good. No disposition appears 
anywhere to extend this usage so as to include other forms where 
little could be gained by it. In keeping with this and with the 
technical and legal usage already referred to, is the well known fact 
that the locative endings showed an especial affinity for the names 
of certain Attic demes, for example: Κεφαλῆθεν, Κεφαλῆσι, 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 25 


᾿Αλωπεκῆσι, ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν, Μαραθῶνάδε, etc. Beyond the confines 
of Attica but six places that are mentioned in the orators show any 
traces of these endings. These places are ᾿Ολυμπία, ᾿Ισθμός, 
Μέγαρα, Θῆβαι, Wratavai and Σαλαμίς. Although out of Attica 
these were familiar names, and the extension of the locative usage 
to them is clearly in harmony with the principles underlying its 
application to names of places within its borders. 

The treatment of the names of places where were temples or 
where the national festivals were held, was by no means uniform. 
Such names were of course common words and had a-widely ex- 
tended use. To words of this sort on general principles the locative 
endings would most naturally attach themselves. Whatever may 
be the rights of the locative, however, in this sphere, they are by 
no means always respected. For example, the forms ’EXevaive, 
"Exevotvdde and ᾿Ελευσινόθεν do not repeat themselves with un- 
varying uniformity. The equivalent prepositional forms come in 
for a share of the honors. So in the case of ᾿Ολυμπία the orators 
use both ᾿Ολυμπίασι and ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ, while for Ολυμπίαζε there 
are but a few occurrences on which it can base its claims to recogni- 
tion. Again ἐν ᾿Ισθμῷ and ᾿Ισθμοῖ both occur, but the -θεν and -de 
endings with "Ic@uos did not make acceptable forms. In such 
cases as these no clearly defined principle can be discerned by which 
the local endings were adopted in one case and rejected or used 
sparingly in another, the words in each case being equally familiar, 
With the words just mentioned may be compared Ἰ]ειραιεύς. The 
locatives Πειραιᾶδε and Tetpavodev were eschewed, though the word 
Πειραιεύς in various relations was in constant use. 

The dominance of the ‘where’ forms already hinted at in the 
case of certain of the orators, maintains itself for the whole body of 
Attic oratory. The total number of locatives in the orators is 220, 
Of these 106 or more than 48 per cent. are of this class. This is 
proof enough that this relation is the most natural, and the one 
having the strongest hold upon the language.” This also appears 


1 The ending -σι, which is the one chiefly used in this relation, is a true locative 
termination. With this compare the dative plural of nouns in -σι. The dative 
and locative having coalesced the case forms were not kept distinct. This suggests 
an explanation of the local dative, and makes clear the naturalness of this relation. 

? About 28 per cent. of the locatives belong to the -δὲ class; to the -θεν class 
belong a little more than 22 per cent. 


20 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


from the fact that here is found the widest range of words. Alto- 
gether there are but thirty-two different words represented in all the 
locative relations. Twenty-eight of these or more than 65 per cent. 
are used in the ‘where’ relation. The ‘whither’ and ‘whence’ 
forms excite no notice anywhere except in Andocides and Demos- 
thenes where they mount beyond the normal elevation as measured 
by the orators in general, comprising for Andocides 50 per cent. of 
all and for Demosthenes more than 65 per cent. of all. The large 
proportion for Andocides is not surprising inasmuch as he uses the 
locative apparently for its own sake and by design. In Demosthenes 
the condition must be charged to the account of XXXIV, XXXV, 
LVI and LIX, already several times referred to. The large num- 
ber of locative forms used in these speeches together with those in 
-Oev in the legal diction of the private speeches generally, used 
chiefly in the designation of demesmen, account for the departure of 
Demosthenes from the normal standard. It would perhaps be better 
to say pseudo-Demosthenes as the condition described is due chiefly 
to the spurious speeches. In the other orators the where forms 
rank as follows: liysias 62 per cent., Isaeus 85, Aeschines 88, 
Isocrates about 90. 

The observations that have been made point to the fact that the 
locative forms played no very essential part in the Greek language 
as it appears in literature." What part they played in colloquial 
Greek must remain to a considerable degree a matter of conjecture.” 
But it may be broadly said it was no important part for, had it 
been, custom or fashion ultimately would have prevailed, as is 
always the case in language, and literature would have made more 
liberal use of them in one department or another. But all litera- 
ture, beginning with Homer, shows a sparing use of them. In 


1The scant use made of them in common nouns has occasioned remark. The 
same fact in the case of proper nouns seems not to have been emphasized. Ruther- 
ford, New Phrynichus, p. 177, says: In Attic this class of words is singularly 
small, and if proper names like ᾿Αθήνηθεν, ᾿Αγκυλῆθεν - - - and adverbs like ἐκεῖθεν, 
χαμᾶθεν, etc., are excepted, few are left to claim Attic citizenship. 

* Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 93, speaking of ἀρχῆθεν says it was of frequent occur- 
rence in the common dialect,—quo Polyb., Dio Chrys., Plutarch., Appian et al. 
usi sunt et multa alia catervatim irruperunt. He also gives examples of ἀγρόθεν, 
μακρόθεν, γῆθεν, οὐρανόθεν and others which, he says, are generally omitted by the 
lexicographers. Finally he says, Quae Attici ex hoc genere arcessiverunt exceptis, 
quae a nominibus urbium ducuntur vix digitorum numerum aequant. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 27 


Homer the -@ev and - δὲ endings are much less common with proper 
names than is commonly supposed. In the Iliad and Odyssey there 
are barely a score of proper names used with the ending -@ev, which 
words do not aggregate more than thirty appearances.' The use 
made of -de, it is safe to say, is not more generous than that made 
of -θεν. Neither is the dative as a locative treated with any very 
particular marks of favor by Homer.’ 

In Herodotus the most careless observer must have noticed the 
absence of the locative proper name.*? There is only the merest 
trace of it. It is entirely rejected in common and ever recurring 
words. The expressions ἐν ᾿Αθήναις, εἰς ᾿Αθήνας, ἐν Μαραθῶνι, 
ἐν ᾿Ελευσῖνι, and others that in Attic may be represented by the 
locative, here occur without variation. 

In Thucydides, although the locative is not altogether absent, 
the preference for the form with the preposition is very pronounced. 
The conditions everywhere point in essentially the same direction, 
and it is unnecessary for the present purpose to pursue this point 
further. 


1 Kolbe, De Suffixi -θεν usu Homerico. In this study the proper names in -θεν 
are given under three heads, viz.: (a) Urbium nomina, having ten representa- 
tives; (b) Terrarum insularumque nomina, with eight representatives; (c) Montis 
nomen, with one example. Under a separate head two other nomina propria in 
-θεν are given, which are governed by prepositions. 

?In a short study by H. Lehmann (Neustettin, 1870), Zur Lehre vom Locativ 
bei Homer, there are less than twenty proper names given that are used in this 
way. Among these are Θήβῃ Z 397, Πλευρῶνι N 207, “Apye: ὃ 174, Λακεδαίμονι 
φ 13. 

A more elaborate study is that by C. Capelle (Hanover, 1864), Dativi Localis 
quae sit vis atque usus in Homeri carminibus. It is here shown that multo saepius 
dativum inveniri cum praepositione junctum. For example over against the non- 
prepositional form in Z 397 are given a half dozen with the preposition: Z 223, 
Ξ 323, A 275, o 247, etc. Similarly other words are treated. The nomina appellativa, 
even the most familiar, show many examples with the preposition. 

3A rather careful examination of the authorities, however, fails to reveal any 
reference to this interesting fact. It seems altogether to have escaped notice. Of 
course Herodotus had no use for technical expressions, hence the absence of the 
locative proper noun. The locative common noun is found occasionally, e. g., 
ἀρχῆθεν, 1.131; πατρόθεν, VI. 14. 


28 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators, 


111. 


THE COMPARATIVE FREQUENCY OF THE LOCATIVE AND THE 
CORRESPONDING PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE. 


᾿Αθήνησι. 


The two types of expression, the locative and the prepositional 
phrase corresponding, stand clearly forth in the words under dis- 
cussion. Are these two types used indifferently as chance or fancy 
leads, or is there a sphere for each in which it is the dominating 
type? Is the one good Attic and the other poor Attic, or have 
both equally just claims to Attic citizenship? In considering the 
relative frequency of the two forms of expression, it will be the 
endeavor to put at rest some of these questions. 

The forms referring to Athens are naturally much in excess of 
the others. They will consequently be taken up first in this branch 
of the inquiry. At the start we are confronted with the statement 
of the lexicographers, ancient and modern, that the forms in -ησι, 
-€e and -@ev are to be regarded as better Attic than the correspond- ἡ 
ing ἐν ᾿Αθήναις, εἰς ᾿Αθήνας and ἐξ ᾿Αθηνῶν. The testimony 
furnished by the usage of the orators supports this view, but classic 
Greek as a whole is far from conforming to the standard set up by 
this department. In fact, if numbers are to receive due credit in 
this inquiry, the verdict given is certainly not unfavorable to the 
preposition. This line of division palpably suggests a difference in 
sphere rather than a difference in quality. In studying the forms 
furnished by Attic oratory, it must always be kept in mind that the 
surprisingly large number of locatives coming under the head of 
᾿Αθῆναι are due in great measure to the four orations (XXXIV; 
XXXV, LVI, LIX), which have already received some consider- 
ation. Whatever be the conclusion reached some allowance must 
be made for the state of affairs exhibited here. An abnormal con- 
dition, manifesting itself in the brief space of a hundred pages or 
less, must not be taken into account too seriously in drawing a 
conclusion applying to a whole department. 


‘Compare note, page 5. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 29 


Of the three forms under ᾿Α θῆναι the one most evenly distributed 
in the orators is ᾿Αθήνησι. It occurs forty-six times and has no 
equivalent prepositional ἐν ᾿Αθήναις. Thirty of the number belong 
to Demosthenes and twelve of the thirty are found in XX XTV, in 
which the repetition without doubt is the necessary outcome of the 
circumstances of the case. This oration deals with a case of bot- 
tomry. The contract, made at Athens, required Phormio, when he 
sold his cargo at the mart of the Cimmerian Bosporus, to take on 
board a return cargo, from the profits of which he was to repay the 
loan with interest at Athens. The failure of the borrower to meet 
the conditions of the éontract calls for an elaborate discussion of it, 
in which the legal technicalities and formulae are necessarily very 
often repeated. This oration and others where similar conditions 
prevail consequently account for the fact that the forms under 
᾿Αθῆναι are so conspicuous among the locatives in the orators. 

᾿Αθήνησι is the legal form. The usage of the orators alone would 
of course justify this as an inference. The inference becomes an 
established fact when the testimony of inscriptions is taken. The 
only form appearing in the inscriptions of the period is ᾿Αθήνησι. 
Turning away from those departments wherein the phraseology is 
under the influence of legal standards, one naturally appeals to 
_ Aristophanes. Unfortunately he renders very little help toward 
deciding the matter. It is true he uses only the prepositional form, 
but the connection is such that the particular point in question is 
not reached. In Knights 1037 and 1327, for example, the modifier 
lifts the word above the ordinary level of colloquial speech. In 
Acharnians 900 the dialectic A@avais is used without the preposi- 
tion in immediate connection, but the influence of the ἐν following 
was doubtless retroactive. In 729 the same dialectic form appears 
with the preposition. These citations point to the fact that ἐν 
᾿Αθήναις was Ἑλληνικόν if not ᾿Αττικίν. The higher ranges of 
style, however, show exclusively the prepositional form. So in 
Pindar ἐν ᾿Αθάναις is the favored expression, and in Euripides the 
regular Attic ἐν ᾿Αθήναις. For prose, excepting the orators, the 
conditions are not essentially different. Thucydides uses the ad- 


1 Tragedy, excepting Euripides, furnishes no examples worthy of note. It is 
to-be understood when no reference is made to authors of the classic period that 
they contribute nothing to the solution of the difficulty. 


90 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


verbial ᾿Αθήνησι twice,’ but in connections that admit of easy 
explanation. The first one (ε 25) occurs in the set phrase ᾿Αλκαίου 
δ᾽ ἄρχοντος ᾿Αθήνησι, and the second is in a decree (ε 47) where 
naturally the legal tone would dominate. This does not, however, 
always hold good for Thucydides, as is shown by εἴ 18, where in a 
decree appear several cases of the prepositional phrase. These are 
the more noteworthy because they are in connection with several 
locative adverbs which might tend to adverbialize such a phrase as 
ἐν ᾿Αθήναις, especially if it were deemed very appropriate to employ 
the adverbial form rather than the other. Altogether Thucydides 
makes use of ἐν ᾿Αθήναις a dozen times. Plato makes use of both 
forms, but neither appears often enough to afford a basis for any 
conclusion. In the spurious Hipparchus (229 B) ἐν ᾿Αθήναις is 
used ; in Charmides (157 E) ᾿Αθήνησι. Lastly, if Xenophon is 
examined, the usage is found not to be uniform. In pseudo- 
Xenophon, Rep. Athen., the adverbial ᾿Αθήνησι is the form used. 
In the Hellenica the prepositional ἐν ᾿Αθήναις is preferred in the 
earlier books; in the later ones the adverbial ᾿Αθήνησι, the form 
with the preposition being slightly in excess. From the facts that 
have been brought together, it appears that the line of difference 
shown between Thucydides on the one hand and the orators on the 
other, is maintained on a like basis for literature in general. 

It will be interesting and profitable before leaving this branch 
of the subject to take another glance at inscriptions. [Ὁ is found 
that ἐν ᾿Αθήναις appears in decrees that are certainly not much 
later than 300 B. c.? From this time on the prepositional form is 
frequent enough and finally becomes the dominating one, though 
the locative never entirely disappears. We are not to suppose that 
the emergence of ἐν ᾿Αθήναις in inscriptions marks the beginning 
of its existence as a recognized form in the sphere to which inscrip- 
tions belong. Its emergence is one thing, its life-history is quite 
another. Its appearance in inscriptions, however, conclusively shows 
that this form had attained its majority in this sphere, and was 
regarded not merely as good literary Attic, but also as good legal 


1The statements made for Thucydides are based on Von Essen’s Index Thucy- 
dideus. 

2See Koehler, 592 and 601. Regarding the last of these Meisterhans, p. 169, 
speaking of another matter says, “nach 300 vor Ch.” 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 91 


Attic. It also indicates that it had been so regarded and used for 
a considerable time before. Its appearance in a sphere where con- 
servatism is the rule gives great weight and significance to the 
occurrence, These considerations, together with the fact, as shown, 
that ἐν ᾿Αθήναις has such a wide distribution through Greek litera- 
ture make a peculiarly strong case for the prepositional form. 
While no one would dispute the authority of the orators in things 
Attic, it is to be remembered that the language there found naturally 
has an official tone. ᾿Αθήνησι being the official legal term for 
the period is the one approved by Attic oratory, and this is done 
without necessarily detracting in the least from the character of 
ἐν ᾿Αθήναις. 

The facts appear to confirm beyond the possibility of question 
the view taken at the start that the difference is one of sphere and 
not one of quality. 


᾿Αθήναζε. 


In ᾿Αθήναζε the conditions encountered are not very dissimilar 
from those already set forth in the case of ᾿Αθήνησι. ᾿Αθήναζε is 
not so widely distributed as its sister form, and a larger proportion 
of its occurrences appear in Demosthenes, who has forty-two out of 
a total forty-six. The cause offered as accounting for ᾿Αθήνησι in 
Oration XXXIV is strikingly illustrated in the case of ᾿Αθήναζε 
in Oration XXXY. This oration furnishes twenty occurrences of 
the word. Eleven more are found in LVI and LIX. The mere 
statement is sufficient to show that the conditions under which such 
results are attained are not the normal ones. In XXXYV is set 
forth another case of bottomry. The borrowers were to sail with 
goods to Pallene in Macedonia, take in a specified number of jars 
of Thracian wine, thence sail to the Bosporus, and, after selling the 
wine, return to Athens* with a counter-cargo and so discharge the 
debt. The speaker endeavors to show that this contract was vio- 
lated in several ways, and in doing so he necessarily repeats the 
technical phraseology of the συγγραφή, in which occur such expres- 
sions as -καὶ πάλιν ᾿Αθήναζε,---ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου ἀντιφορτισθέντα 
᾿Αθήναζε πάλιν, ---- Αθήναζε ἀποδώσουσιν κ. τ. λ. ᾿Αθήναζε occurs 
five times in the συγγραφή. If the speech is examined, it is found 
that the majority of cases where the adverb in question occurs, are 


32 Locative Hapressions in the Attie Orators. 


essentially repetitions of the phrases of the συγγραφὴ. If, for 
example, § 3 is compared with the contract, § 10, it is found to be 
an anticipation of it. Again in ὃ 24 the speaker says γέγραπται - - - 
ἐν TH συγγραφῆ - - - ἀπάγειν AOnvate - - - καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἀφίκωνται 
᾿Αθήναξζε. The point to be illustrated is clear enough, and needs 
no reinforcement from this speech. Valuable confirmation, how- 
ever, comes from another oration, namely, LVI, which, like the two 
already considered, relates to a loan on bottomry and the non- 
fulfillment of a contract. Dionysodorus borrowed money to carry 
on the corn trade between Athens and Egypt. The loan was to be 
repaid on the return to Athens, and clauses inserted required the 
trade to be between Athens and Egypt only. This oration has a 
greater interest than the others, because in it the locatives and their 
prepositional equivalents appear side by side—seven of ᾿Αθήναξε 
and ten of εἰς ᾿Αθήνας. For a comparison of the two types of 
expression it furnishes the best opportunity in Attic oratory. It 
will be worth while, consequently, to give it a moment’s considera- 
tion. In section five the conversation of the parties interested in 
the transaction is reported. It is as follows: ἔλεγον ὅτι βούλονται 
δανείσασθαι ἐπὶ τῇ νηί, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τε πλεύσαι εἰς ᾿Αθήνας καὶ ἐξ 
Αὐγύπττου εἰς Ῥοδον ἢ εἰς ᾿Αθήνας. Again in ὃ 6 occurs the 
following: ἀπακριναμένων δ᾽ ἡμῶν - - - ὅτι οὐκ ἂν δανείσαιμεν 
εἰς ἕτερον ἐμπόριον ἀλλ᾽ ἢ εἰς ᾿Αθήνας. These quotations repeat 
the substance of the preliminary informal talk about the matter 
and, as one might expect, have the non-technical εἰς ᾿Αθήνας. In 
§ 36, however, the συγγραφὴ is given and immediately following 
the speaker repeats it verbatim, saying ἀκούετε ὦ ἄνδρες, Αθηναῖοι. 
᾿Αθήνηθεν, φησίν, εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ᾿Αθήναζε. The 
quotations without doubt show two types, and in the main the 
distinction is observed throughout. It is not necessary, however, 
that a strictly mechanical observance of it should be made in every 
case to meet the requirements of a sufficient proof. When the 
strictly legal form is desired ᾿Αθήναξζε is the preferred form. In 
casual references to the συγγραφὴ the speaker uses his choice. If 
such a distinction were suggested by this oration alone, it might be 
justly looked upon with suspicion as being merely accidental, but 
inasmuch as it harmonizes with a distinction which literature in 
general warrants, there can be no justification for discrediting it. 


Locative Expressions ‘in the Attie Orators. 33 


Turning from the orators, if Thucydides is looked into, it is 
found that in him the references to Athens in this relation are 
many. About fifty of them are in the prepositional form; not 
more than a dozen haye the locative form. In Plato the preposition 
occurs in Hip. Maj. 281 B, the locative in Phaedo 57 B and Parmen. 
126 A. Xenophon, as in the case of the ‘where’ relation, uses both 
forms. In the spurious Rep. Ath. only the locative is found, while 
in the Hellenica the prepositional expression predominates in the 
ratio of 5:1. Aristophanes furnishes but one example. This, 
in Birds 301, is the locative ᾿Αθήναζε. To mention individually 
the various writers in the higher departments of literature is not 
necessary, since in them Athens in this relation is referred to by the 
prepositional form. 

In inscriptions the adverb holds undisputed sway till the middle 
of the fourth century. About this time, however, in an inscription 
given by Koehler (No. 83) the form εἰς ᾿Αθήνας appears. The 
emergence of the prepositional form at this rather early date shows 
that the hold of the adverb must have been very slight, and points 
to the injustice of denying to εἰς ᾿Αθήνας the rights and privileges, 
as far as general usage is concerned, which the authorities have 
hitherto accorded to ’A@yvafe alone. From the date mentioned the 
locative gradually gives way to the other type, and finally it dis- 
appears altogether. The facts justify a conclusion for ᾿Αθήναζξε 
similar to that for ᾿Αθήνησι. For the former, however, it seems 
to be even more securely established than for the latter. 


᾿Αθήνηθεν. 


The last of the trio, ᾿Αθήνηθεν, is represented by less material 
than the others. In the orators the locative is used seventeen 
times, ten of these being in the orations already discussed, and the 
remarks made regarding ᾿Αθήνησι and ᾿Αθήναζε as used there 
apply likewise to ᾿Αθήναθεν. The prepositional form is not found 
in the orators. 

Turning away from this department the usage for prose is found 
to be essentially similar to that observed in the case of its sister 
forms. Thucydides refers to ᾿Αθῆναι in this relation more than a 
score of times, but invariably the prepositional form is employed. 


3 


94 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


This seems to indicate that Thucydides objected to the use of the 
locative. Xenophon uses both forms, but contrary to his usage in 
the other relations, the adverb in this case is in the ascendency. 
Aristophanes contributes nothing to this branch of the subject ; 
neither do the higher ranges of literature. Inscriptions exhibit but 
few cases of this relation. Those that are found conform to the 
inscriptional standard. ‘This is the whole story for ᾿Αθήνηθεν. It 
is not a long one, but it is in sufficient detail to safely warrant the 
conclusion that its line of usage closely corresponds to that of 
᾿Αθήνησι and ᾿Αθήναζε. 

The prominent facts in the history of these forms lead to the 
conclusion that the dictum of the lexicographers, which pronounces 
for the locative to the discredit of the other forms, was based upon 
a rather careless deduction from the usage of the orators, which 
usage, as later investigators have shown, is the same essentially as 
that of inscriptions for the corresponding period. As has already 
been suggested, in inscriptions official language is at its best. The 
orators of course felt themselves under certain obligations to make 
their language conform to official standards. The official standard 
is a high standard, ‘This every one allows. But is it not extreme 
to set it up as the standard? as the one to which every thing must 
conform, or run the risk of being excluded from Attic citizenship ? 
We may not stigmatize every type of expression that does not 
comply with these requirements as unfit for recognition. Any one 
who has given attention to the matter can recall forms of expres- 
sion that are indisputably good Attic, which have no place in 
inscriptions. All that may be said in such cases is that they were 
not required in official language. Language is conservative. There 
are few or no reyolutions in it. The existing state of things is 
rather the result of slow evolution. The fixity of types in language 
is consequently a principal that must be taken into careful account 
in any study of this sort. The locative by its nature was adapted 
to the legal sphere. Being once introduced here, it became a type 
which maintained itself pretty securely till toward the close of the 
fourth century before Christ. Outside of this sphere it was not the 
type at any time, but allegiance was paid to the prepositional form. 
A proper definition of the two types of expression rests upon this 
basis and not upon the false assumption of the lexicographers. 


Locative. Expressions in the Attic Orators. 35 


*EXevois. , 


After ᾿Αθῆναι the place most frequently referred to among those 
under discussion is *EXevois where was located the famous temple 
of Demeter in which were celebrated the Eleusinian mysteries. 
Fifteen references to it in the orators exhibit the locative relations. 
The locative dative is in the lead with eight occurrences, followed 
by the forms in -δὲ and -@ev, with five and two respectively. In 
general, references to this place were doubtless very numerous. The 
tendency in such a case would be to reduce the form of expression 
to the character of a formula stripped of all superfluous verbiage. 
To the fixity of the formula in this case would be added the pro- 
tecting influence of its religious character. From two points of 
view the chances of the locative are excellent, and in advance we 
may infer that it will dominate, if it does not entirely drive out, the 
other form. It is found, however, that the prepositional expression 
has its place clearly defined. The orators, to be sure, favor the’ 
adverbial type. Isaeus in V. 42 gives an example of ἐν ᾿Ελευσῖῆνι. 
This stands over against eight cases of the other type. Cobet of 
course does not accept the approved reading for Isaeus, being 
violently opposed to the preposition in the ‘where’ relation with 
this and similar words.’ In cases where the preposition is found 
Cobet, without regard to the MSS., some of the best of which, he 
asserts, have it even when the metre repudiates it, would cast it out.? 
Outside of Attic oratory very few examples come to the surface. 
The reading adopted for Plato Menexenus 243 E is the adverbial 


} Commenting on ἐν ᾿Αυλῶνι, Aes. I. 101, Cobet says, N. L., p. 95: In verbis ἐν 
μὲν ἐν ᾿Αυλῶνι habemus perpetuam propemodum Graeculorum interpolationem 
nescientium ᾿Αυλῶνι, Μαραθῶνι, ᾿Ελευσῖνι, ῬΡαμνοῦντι et sim. haud secius adverbia 
esse et prepositionem respuere atque Σφηττοῖ, Meyapot, ᾿Αλωπεκῆσι, ᾿Αμφιτροπῆσι 
- - - - multaque alia. 

Again, page 308: - - et passim adverbiis loci Μαραθῶνι, Ῥαμνοῦντι, Ἐλευσῖνι 
similibusque indocti Graeculi praepositionem ἐν perperam addiderunt. 

Compare V. L., p. 30, where language to the same effect is employed. 

Frohberger, Lysias, part III. p.116, commenting on Ῥαμνοῦντι, seems not to 
favor the extreme view of Cobet. 

? Cobet has a refreshing way of referring to these forms as if examples were in 
great abundance. The occurrences of any one form are in fact few. To get ἃ re- 
spectable number he apparently lumps together all he can conveniently find in 
Greek literature. 


36 Locative Expressions in the Attie Orators. 


᾿Ἔλευσῖνι. Reyond this literature contributes nothing of any ser- 
vice for the inquiry. As far as literature is concerned consequently 
the case is easily summed up. In the orators where the forms 
occur with comparative frequency the locative predominates. Out- 
side of this department, where the preposition might reasonably be 
expected to show itself, examples are wanting, or are so rare that 
there is no basis for a conclusion.’ The inscriptional history of the 
term closely coincides with that of ᾿Αθήνησι. In the earliest Attic 
period the non-prepositional form alone is encountered. Beginning 
with 315 B. c. the preposition appears? and thereafter is very 
aggressive. In the Roman period the form with the preposition 
is in the lead, occurring three times, while the adverb occurs but 
once. Number 121 of Dittenberger’s Sylloge Inscriptionum Grae- 
corum, referred to the latter part of the fourth century B. ¢., is a 
very interesting inscription from the point of view of this inquiry. 
In the general statement on the front of the tablet appears the 
words ᾿Αθηναίων of τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐν ᾿Ελευσῖνι κ. τ. Δ. 
Below this are duo quarternarum coronarum ordines, in which is 
found the following: ᾿Αθηνααίων οἱ τεταγμένοι ᾿λευσῖνι. This 
inscription, whatever may be said of its date, seems to show that 
the Greeks themselves recognized two spheres of usage for the 
word. The first quotation gives the higher and more dignified 
literary form; the second, being a portion of a tabulated list, has 
the formulary ’EXevotve. Nothing appears anywhere to cast dis- 
credit on the standing of ἐν ’EXevotiv, and Liddell and Scott, 
following Cobet, are rather unguarded in asserting that it is late 
and bad Attic. 

In the case of ’EXevoivade there are few new facts to add. The 
orators exhibit this relation five times in the adverbial form and 
once in the prepositional. The latter, however, appearing as it 
does in a ψήφισμα (XVIII. 37) carries little or no weight. 
Thucydides has three examples of the ‘whither’ relation, all of 
them having the preposition. Xenophon, in the few cases where 
he has it, uses both types apparently with indifference. The 


' Herodotus is only incidentally referred tc in this study. The form is common 
enough in him always with the preposition ev. 

3 Meisterhans, Gram. At. Ins., p. 170. 

3 Dittenberger, Corpus Ins. At, 5, 61, 119 and 895. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 37 


inscriptional form is ’EXeuvcivdde, but it is rarely seen. The same 
may be said of ’EXevowoGev. In the orators ᾿λευσινόθεν occurs 
twice (Andoe. I. 111; pseudo-Lys. VI. 45). Over against these 
stands ἐξ ᾿Ελευσῖνος in Lysias XIII. 44. In other prose with 
which we are concerned the prepositional form exclusively is 
employed. 


Μαραθών. 


In the treatment of Μαραθῶνι the orators appear to use greater 
freedom than in the case of Ἐλευσῖνι. The accepted text of the 
orators furnishes eleven cases of the locative dative Μαραθῶνι, not 
counting one quoted by Lycurgus (Lycurg., ὃ 109). Four of these 
are furnished by Isocrates and seven by Demosthenes. To place 
against these are five cases of the prepositional expression in 
Aeschines and Lycurgus.! One is impressed with the marked 
similarity of the passages where the references occur. For example 
Isocrates IV. 91 contains τῆς Μαραθῶνι μάχης. The same words 
are repeated in Isoc. V. 147. In VIII. 38 is found τοῖς Mapa- 
θῶνι; in Demosthenes XIV. 30, of Μαραθῶνι, and so on through 
the list. This uniformity in the phrase sufficiently accounts for 
the locative character of the word, and were this type to maintain 
itself everywhere nothing more would be proved than that it was 
a stereotyped expression. There is nothing in this to reflect upon 
the character of the prepositional type. Aeschines thinks not. 
Lycurgus thinks not. Kiihner’s statement that the prepositional 
form is more common? is certainly nearer the truth than Cobet’s 
view, already given in connection with ’EXevaois. A dogmatic 
statement, however, on either side of the question, in the presence 
of the facts, is out of place. 

In the older Attic of Thucydides the usage varies. The word 
occurs three times (a 18, 73; 8 34). In a 73 all the MSS. agree 
in omitting the preposition ;* in the other places they favor its use 
and the texts have adopted it. If Cobet’s view that the scribes are 
to be held accountable for the insertion of the preposition be correct, 


1 Aes. II. 75; ILE. 181, 186, 259. Lycurg., 2 104. 
2 Compare note on page 5. 
3See Morris, Thucydides, Bk. I. Appendix, p. 313. 


88 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


it is pertinent to ask why they Peete tito) omitted it in one case, 
and inserted it in the other. 

Plato uses the words most frequently in the Menexenus, and: 
here is found only the locative form. The locative is what is 
to be expected in this style of composition. It was intended 
as a rhetorical exercise. Its language must show agreement 
with official standards, and it must be filled with the ‘common- 
places of commemorative oratory.’' He makes use of the pre- 
position, however, even in the Laws where there are two cases 
of it (698 E, 707 A). In the Laws also is a case of the adverbial 
form (699 A). 

Aristophanes furnishes six examples of the word, but in none of 
these cases is the preposition admitted into the received text. 

Material bearing on the point in inscriptions is not abundant, 
but such as is found is not unfavorable to the preposition. Meister- 
hans asserts? that ἐμ Μαραθῶνι appears only after 315 B. c. and 
cites Koehler 601 in proof. This statement does not militate against 
the preposition inasmuch as examples of the non-prepositional form 
before this time, if not entirely wanting, are rare. If examples of 
it were numerous it would only go to aioe that the non-preposi- 
tional form was the official type. In inscriptions ἐν Μαραθῶνι 
appears about the same time as ἐν ’EXevotv. The difference be- 
tween the two is that references to "EXevois are common at all 
periods, while to Μαραθών they are rare at any time. 

Regarding Μαραθῶνάδε little need be said. It appears twice in 
the orators (Andocides I. 107, Demosthenes LIX. 94). On the 
other hand εἰς Μαραθῶνα is in Lysias II. 21 ; Isocrates XIT. 195; 
Demosthenes IV. 34. Judged by the company it keeps, the pre- 
positional form has the better character. From its first appearance 
in literature (Odyssey 7, 80) down through all periods the preposi- 
tional form is the one preferred. 

The lines of usage for the locatives of the words already con- 
sidered (’A@jvaz, EXevois, Μαραθών) appear to run nearly parallel. 
Whatever difference they may exhibit in holding power during the 
period of the rapid decay of the influence, never strong, of the 
locative in the time of Demosthenes and his contemporaries, they 


1 Jebb, Attic Orators, I. p. 210. * Gram. At. Ins., p. 170. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 39 


‘each show the all but complete ascendency of the prepositional 
form in inscriptions at nearly the same time, about 300 B. Ο. 


The Demes of Attica. 


Of the demes in Attica the one referred to most frequently specifi- 
cally as a deme is ᾿Αλωπεκαί.. There are sixteen such references 
in the orators, the form in -@ev being in the lead with thirteen 
occurrences. Harpocration says, ὁ δημότης ᾿Αλωπεκεύς καὶ ᾿Αλω- 
᾿πεκῆθεν. Only the locative appears in the orators and in every 
case in official designations. Contrary to usage in general, inscrip- 
tions show a gradually increasing use of the locative until in the 
Roman period it is the only form used. Outside of oratory and 
inscriptions there is no material to be gleaned.” This is due of 
course to the non-official character of the great body of literature. 

The history of ᾿Αλωπεκῆσιε is similar. The adverbial type be- 
comes fixed at an early date, appearing even in Herodotus (V. 63). 
It is the only inscriptional form. 

Kedar, which is also found in the ‘ whence’ and ‘ where’ rela- 
tions, does not require separate treatment, it being almost identical 
with that of ᾿Αλωπεκαί just considered. It is found only in official 
designations, and there is no departure from the official standard. 

Πρόσπαλτα δῆμος τῆς ᾿Ακαμαντίδος is found but three times in 
the orators in the locative relations. The example of Προσπαλτόθεν 
in Demosthenes (X.LIII. 64) appears to be the only example of 
the form in classical literature. ‘The demesmen are everywhere 
designated rather by the adjective in -vos (Demosthenes XLIII. 
48, 65, 77). From the adverbial form ΠΠροσπαλτοῖ, which occurs 
twice in Isaeus (XI. 44, 49), there is no deviation. 

The last to be considered in this connection, AexéXeva, exhibits 
a freer usage. ‘This is clearly due to the fact that it is not confined 
to strictly technical passages. Lysias (XXIII. 2, 3) uses Aexe- 
λειόθεν, but in the technical sense, as the examples show. The 
first one reads as follows: ἠρόμην ὁπόθεν δημοτεύοιτο - - - - - - 


EAevals and Μαραθών are not treated under this head because it is not as demes 
they are usually referred to. They were places having an interest quite distinct 
from their geographical value. 

* Plato furnishes an example in Gorgias, 495 D, Σωκράτης - - - 6 ᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν. 


40 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι Δεκελειόθεν. The example in the next 
section is under the same influence. For general purposes the pre- 
position comes into play, as is shown by Isocrates XVI.17: of 
δὲ τοὺς ἐκ Δεκελείας μετεπέμποντο. The same treatment is shown 
by Thucydides’ and Xenophon.’ 

The adverb Δεκελειῆσι is found but once (Isoc. VIII. 84). 
Thucydides and Xenophon prefer the preposition.? Δεκελείαζξε, 
given in the lexicons, has no existence in classical Greek, the pre- 
positional form being in use everywhere.* 

The Attic demes referred to only in the ‘ where’ relation are as 
follows: Μελίτῃ, ‘Payvodyts, Θριᾶσι, ᾿Αμφιτροπῆσι, Φλυῆσι, 
Κικκυνοῖ, Σφηττοῖ,᾿ ΑΘθμονοῖ. 

The first of these, Μελίτῃ, is found in Isaeus, XI. 42, and occurs 
nowhere else. Stephanus says τὰ τοπικὰ ἐν Μελίτῃ. This is 
fully confirmed by literature and inscriptions. The omission of 
the preposition from Isaeus XI. 42 is sufficiently accounted for by 
the dominating locative influence of the passage in which it occurs: 
ἀγρὸν μὲν Θριᾶσι πένθ᾽ ἡμιτάλαντα εὑρίσκοντα, οἰκίαν δὲ Μελίτῃ 
τρισχιλίων ἐωνημένην, ἄλλην δὲ ᾿Ελευσῖνι πεντακοσίων. 

The second word in the list, Ραμνοῦντι, is one regarding which 
the statements of Kiihner and Cobet are at variance, the former 
asserting that the preposition is generally found in connection with 
it, the latter that it must not be allowed at all. The word is ex- 
tremely rare in literature. Livsias (XIX. 28) furnishes the only 
example in the orators. In later Greek it is somewhat more 
common, and uniformly has the preposition. The scanty material 
to be had is far from warranting the conclusion of either Kihner 
or Cobet. 

Of the remaining words nothing need be said, except that they 
occur with extreme rarity and only in the locative form. 

The demes represented by the form in - θεν are ΚΚολωνός, 'Ἱστιαία, 
"Exady, Βραυρών, Baty, Oin. These, with the single exception 
of Κολωνός, are rarely seen, and such evidence as can be obtained 
gives no intimation what the non-official usage was. To Κοόλωνος, 
however, some interest attaches. The orators confine themselves 


1 Thucydides, 7 27, θ 3, 71, 77. 2 Xen. Hell, I. 1, 3; II. 3, 3. 
3Thuc., 669, 70, 71. Xen. Hell., III. 5, 5. 
4 For example, Dem., XXIV.121. Lycurg., 73 120, 121. 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 41 


to the adverbial in -θεν. This form appears three times. The 
orators, it would seem, did not adhere to this type because of any 
official restraint placed upon them, for inscriptions use both the 
ending -@ev and the preposition ἐκ. For example, the reading in 
Boekh 115 and 183 is ἐκ Κολωνοῦ. In Koehler 643 the locative 
appears to be the proper form (Σοφοκλῆς Κολωνῆθεν), while in 
672 (B. ο. 376) the reading is undoubtedly Σοφοκλῆς ᾿Ιοφῶνος ἐκ 
Κολωνοῦ. The preposition is used also in 720. Dittenberger, 
Sylloge, 164 shows both Κολωνῆθεν and ἐκ Κολωνοῦ. This free- 
dom of usage continues for all periods, and the several demes of 
the name seem not to have assumed any characteristic form of 
designation in inscriptions of any period. 

The demes”Agudva, ᾿Αραφήν, Βῆσα, Κύθηρα are represented by 
forms in -de and -&. They are for practical purposes ἅπαξ λεγό- 
μενα, and call for no consideration. Α φιόνα is represented by two 
occurrences of εἰς ᾿Αφιδναν (Isoc., X. 19; XVIII. 37), which 
stand over against the one adverbial form. 

It is clearly seen that the names of the Attic demes furnish the 
great majority of the words used in the various locative relations. 
A thorough search through all literature would add but few more 
to the list. Even among these, however, the locative performs but 
a meagre service. The names of demes as a class do not adopt the 
locative endings even in the most technical phraseology. Such 
locatives as do appear plainly show the official stamp. When one 
gets beyond the confines of the ‘official’ departments, freedom 
from the locative influence at once announces itself, as the facts 
abundantly declare. 


Μουνυχία. 


Before leaving this branch of the inquiry, one more name, 
Μουνυχία, though not that of a deme, may appropriately receive 
notice. Μουνυχία was a harbor of Athens, adjoining the Piraeus, 
where was a temple of Artemis. This word is found six times in 
the ‘ where’ relation, the one most susceptible to locative influence, 
in the thirteenth oration of Lysias, and these clearly show a stereo- 
typed character. For example, ἡ ἐκκλησία Μουνυχίασιν, ὃ 32, 
and again in ὃ 35. Also in ὃ 52, ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ ἐκάθητο Μουνυ- 
xiaow. In Demosthenes X VIII. 107 the reading of all the older 


42 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


texts, ἐν Μουνυχίᾳ exabéfero, gives place in the Teubner text of 
1887, revised by Blass, to ἐν Μουνυχίας ἐκαθέζετο. Usage before 
the time of Demosthenes would justify this emendation, but the 
tendency shown by him to avoid the locative would warrant us in 
retaining the old reading. 

Thucydides employs the adverb in 6 92. In inscriptions the 
same tendency to use the preposition that has been noted in other 
words, appears. For example, Koehler 471 and 476. Although 
these inscriptions are late, there are no earlier ones with locative 
forms to neutralize what value they may have. 

The only example of Μουνυχίαζε is in Lysias XIII. 29. 


Places not in Attica. 
᾿Ολυμπία. 


Of the places not in Attica those that were the seats of the 
national games were very often referred to. Under this head 
Ὀλυμπία stands first. It is represented by two locative forms, 
᾿Ολυμπίασι and Ὀλυμπίαζε, having six and two occurrences 
respectively. Isocrates gives his sanction to the prepositional 
form, having in XVI. 32, ὁρῶν τὴν ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ πανήγυριν. 
It also appears in Dinarchus (I. 103) in a bracketed passage. 
Thucydides makes use of both forms, but seems to prefer the 
locative. In the speech of the Corinthians (a 121) occurs ἐν - - - 
᾿Ολυμπίᾳ. In a speech of Pericles (a 143) the locative is used. 
Other examples of the locative are ε 18 and 47, both of which 
passages are decrees. Plato in Laws 822 B has ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ. In 
other places in the Laws the adverbial form is employed, as it 
is elsewhere in Plato. Aristophanes uses only the locative form. 
The reigning form for this relation is unquestionably the loca- 
tive, but the preposition appears often enough to prove its good 
standing. 

The ending - ζε with this word appears twice (Andoc., I. 132; 
IV. 26). The tendency to use the prepositional expression is much 
more pronounced in this relation than in the other. The orators 
furnish three examples (Andoc., TV. 30; Dinarchus, I. 81, 82). 
Thucydides in this relation, as in the other, seems, contrary to his 


ee 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 43 


rule, to prefer the locative. This suggests, what was doubtless the 
case, that this word was among the first in the Attic period to yield 
to the locative tendency. He furnishes three examples—two of 
them adverbial, the other prepositional. In y 8 both forms are 
found: εἶπον ᾿Ολομπίαζε παρεῖναι - - - - ἀφικνοῦνται ἐς τὴν 
᾿Ολυμπίαν. The preposition in the second place is here perhaps 
due to the desire to provide for the articular form." The other 
example of - is in £16. Plato uses the preposition, showing for 
it a decided preference, as is seen for example in Laws, 950 E: 
Πυθώδε τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι καὶ εἰς ᾿Θλυμπίαν τῷ Διὶ - - - - χρὴ 
πέμπειν. Xenophon has numerous examples of the preposition. 
Late inscriptions have the preposition; earlier ones furnish no 
material hearing on the subject. 


Ἴσθμός and Νεμέα." 


The locative adverb Ἴσθμοϊ is used but once in the orators, καὶ 
ἐνίκησεν ᾿Ισθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ (Lysias XIX. 63). In Lysias II. 45 
the form with the preposition is found, ὠφελήσειν τὸ ἐν ᾿Ισθμῷ 
τεῖχος. Thucydides nowhere has ᾿Ισθμοῖ," but rather ἐν ᾿Ισθμῷ 
(818,715). Plato has but one example—xat ᾿Ισημοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ. 
Cobet condemns the error of writing everywhere in Xenophon ἐν 
Ἰσθμῷ for IcOuot. He mentions the passage cited above from 
Lysias, and says: “Lysiae quoque reddiderim τὸ Ἰσθμοῖ τεῦχος. * 
Pindar, whose usage in this connection is worth noting, has both 
ἐν ᾿Ισθμῷ and ᾿Ισθμοῖ, the former, however, prevailing. The loca- 
tive is the inscriptional form. 

The examples found without doubt point to the two spheres. 
The locative takes chief place in the fixed formulae, such as 
ἐνίκησεν ᾿Ισθμοῖ. Elsewhere the preposition takes precedence. 
For the other relations the prepositions were uniformly employed, 
᾿Ισθμόνδε and ᾿Ισθμόθεν not being in good repute. 


1See Amer. Journal of Philology, II. 541. 

* Separate treatment is not given to Νεμέα because in use it is almost identical 
with Ἰσθμός. 

3Some texts have ᾿Ισθμοῖ in ε 18 following Cobet. 

4 Novae Lect., ». 321. 


44 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


Μέγαρα. 


To names of places not in Attica, excepting the seats of the 
national games, the locative endings were rarely attached. To 
Μέγαρα, of such places, the locative ending was most frequently 
applied. In the orators the form in - δὲ is most common, appearing 
four times. Opposed to these are five occurrences of the prepo- 
sitional form.’ Thucydides has several examples of εἷς Μέγαρα, 
but no case of the adverb. The usage of Xenophon is the same. 
Aristophanes has Μέγαράδε in Achar. 524. Plato also furnishes 
an example of the same form in Crito 53 B. 

This word nicely shows the history of the locative in general in 
the Attic period. The transition from the prepositional form of 
the old Attic as it appears in Thucydides to the official locative of 
the earlier orators, Andocides and Lysias, is clearly marked. Not 
less distinct is the transition from the locative back to the primitive 
type used by the later orators. This epitomizes the history of 
nearly every word with which this study has to do. The locatives 
of Μέγαρα, however, made little impression, and soon disappeared 
because they became fixed in no technical and formulary expres- 
sions, as did most, if not all, of the other words under discussion. 

Andocides I. 34 furnishes the only example of Meyapo@er in the 
orators. The equivalent ἐκ Μεγάρων occurs but once also (Lycur- 
gus ὃ 58). Plato furnishes one example of Μεγαρόθεν in Phaedo 
59 C, the reason for which is on the surface: καὶ Μεγαρόθεν 
"Euxreldns τε καὶ Τερψίων. Thucydides and Xenophon use only 
the prepositional expression. 

Meyapoé does not occur in the orators, but everywhere instead 
ἐν Μεγάροις. This is also true for Thucydides and Xenophon. 
Plato has the locative in -oz in Theat., 142 C; Rep., 368 A. 


Θῆβαι. 


The locative endings were much less freely used with Θῆβαι 
than with Méyapa. It appears in the orators under but one loca- 


1 [Demosthenes], XXV. 56; XXXY. 28; LIX. 35. Dinarchus, 1.58. Lycur- 
gus, ¢ 25. 


———— πρΝ μὴ» 


Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 45 


tive relation—@7@Bno.. A few examples of this form are furnished 
by Lysias and Isocrates. On the other hand there are many 
passages in which ἐν Θήβαις occurs.' The same conditions prevail 
for Greek literature in general. The forms in -Oev and -f are 
very rare. One example of Θήβαξε occurs in Homer among many 
examples with the preposition. Plato also gives one example of 
@ ate in Crito 53 B. The form in - εν is either late or dialectic, 
the latter in Aristophanes Achar., 862. Both εἰς Θήβας and ἐκ 
Θηβῶν are found frequently in the orators. 


ΤΠ λαταιαί. 


This city of Beeotia is referred to twice by the locative Πλαταιᾶσι. 
Both occurrences are in pseudo-Demosthenes LIX. The preposi- 
tion is elsewhere preferred. Noteworthy is the passage in Demos- 
thenes X VIII, 208 inasmuch as the orator, having used Μαραθῶνι, 
would naturally have used Πλαταιᾶσι after it, had it been a 
standard form. Inscriptions furnish no material that is of service. 


Σαλαμίς. 


There is but a trace of the locative influence in connection with 
the word Σαλαμίς. Σαλαμῖνι is found in Demosthenes XIX. 312 
and in Aeschines IIJ. 181. In the first passage it is accounted for 
by the controlling influence of the neighboring word, Μαραθῶνι: 
οἱ Μαραθῶνι καὶ Σαλαμῖνι παρέσχονθ᾽ ἡμέτεροι πρόγονοι. There 
is much disputing in regard to the passage in Aeschines, which is 
commonly read, ὅτ᾽ ἐν τῇ Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίᾳ. The usage of 
Aeschines favors the insertion of the preposition ἐν, as Sheibe pro- 
posed. Cobet, however, with his usual fondness for the locative, 
rejects the preposition, and his reading is the one adopted by the 
Teubner text. ‘The first preposition may account for the absence 
of the second whether the writing is due to the orator himself or 
to a scribe. The words ἐν Σαλαμῖνι occur repeatedly in the orators 


ΤΟΥ example, Isoc., XII. 168. Dem., VIII. 65; XVIII. 67,177. Aes., IIT. 
142,148. Dinarch., 1. 20. 


40 Locative Expressions in the Attic Orators. 


in connection with vavwayia,' forming an expression from which, 
on general principles, the preposition might be dropped.? The few 
locatives that appear elsewhere can usually be accounted for easily 
by the dominating influence of a neighboring form. So Plato, 
Menex., 245 A, τρόπαια τὰ τε Μαραθῶνι καὶ Σαλαμῖνι. Even 
in passages of this sort the preposition is more common. Compare 
Demosthenes XVIII. 208, μὰ τοὺς Μαραθῶνι - - - καὶ τοὺς ἐν 
Σαλαμῖνι. Again Thucydides a 73, Μαραθῶνι - - - ἐν Σαλαμῖνι. 

In inscriptions the preposition is regularly employed from the 
earliest periods (Meisterhans, page 170). 


1This, however, is the only case of ναυμαχία in the dative. 
* As for example in τὴν Μαραθῶνι μάχην. 


as 





ty, 
; boi) 





* t's Ἷ 
Nass 


any 
Nia bal 7 ὦ 


ci 5 
ake 
7 
ἵν 


Rene. 
he ΤΟ 


rot 
yy 











UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 





Ὑ 


“ΜῊ 
ete 





